MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028604271

On the Fire Performance of Exterior Wall Materials and Assemblies

2022· dissertation· en· W7028604271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryBuilding envelopeEfficient energy useMasonry veneerFire performanceFire safetyGreenhouse gasFire protectionThermal comfort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent attempts at combating climate change have urged the developers, public authorities, and other building stakeholders to employ enhanced energy conservation initiatives as Canada’s building sector accounts for 13% of national greenhouse gas emissions. These initiatives are often realized by using energy-efficient envelopes on the building exterior. As a physical barrier separating the controlled interior spaces of a structure from the exterior surroundings, the building envelopes are designed to provide effective vapour control while simultaneously being constructed with high thermal resistant materials in the façade. Consistent with this, modern energy-efficient envelopes are composed of four distinct layers (from outermost to innermost): decorative surface siding, exterior continuous insulation, weather resistant barrier, and exterior sheathing. Each layer addresses a specific design objective, and when assembled into the envelope, contributes to the overall performance of the exterior wall in meeting energy efficiency and hygrothermal requirements. Nowadays, multi-layered exterior envelopes are taking centre stage in construction, gradually replacing conventional monolithic concrete and masonry façades. Predicting fire performance of such assemblies, however, is challenging and should be carefully addressed to ensure occupant and firefighter safety as well as minimize property damage in the event of fire. The importance of this has been tragically demonstrated through recent massive fires around the globe in Turkey (Polat Tower, 2012), Australia (Lacrosse Building, 2014), England (Grenfell Tower, 2017) and even twice for the same residential building in the U.A.E. (Torch Tower, 2015 and 2017). It has become evident that while much emphasis is placed on improving energy and hygrothermal performance of exterior assemblies, next generation exterior wall designs must also exhibit superior fire resistance. For this, understanding the fire performance of exterior wall materials, alone and in combination with underlying layers, is critical since a broad selection of material combinations are possible
\nwhen designing an envelope.
\n
\nAssessment of the fire response of exterior wall assemblies usually involves expensive large-scale testing, that can only be conducted in a limited number of facilities, and which are often outfitted with the minimum instrumentation required by a given test standard. This has led to a dearth of detailed data, with consequent knowledge gaps, regarding the high temperature properties and fire behavior of many building materials. Further, it still poses a significant challenge to properly assess the effect of building envelope design features on the fire performance of exterior wall assemblies. Careful and detailed assessment of fire behaviour of such assemblies is therefore needed to advance performance-based engineering of new and innovative exterior wall designs.
\n
\nThe goal of the present research is to address these challenges through developing a consistent set of test methods where exterior wall materials are subjected, at small- through larger-scale, to temperature and heat flux conditions similar to those encountered in realistic fire exposures. More specifically, experiments are aimed toward characterizing and advancing current understanding of the impact of different exterior continuous insulation products on the fire performance and bulk-path heat transfer in wall assemblies. To achieve these objectives, representative samples of the main layers forming an energy-efficient, exterior building envelope in Canada were first identified. These layers are vinyl siding panels, stone wool insulation, polyisocyanurate insulation, extruded polystyrene insulation, non-woven house wrap, and oriented strand board. Their fire performance was then characterized via two complementary avenues of investigation. In Phase 1, small-scale fire testing of the selected materials was conducted by instrumenting representative specimens of each material with thermocouple probes and subjecting them to varying levels of radiant heat flux exposure to determine key parameters such as time variations in mass loss and heat release rate per unit area, time-histories of surface and bulk sample temperatures, as well as thermal degradation and damage (shrinking, charring, melting, self-heating). In Phase 2, 2,438 mm × 2,438 mm large exterior wall envelopes constructed using the same materials were instrumented with multiple sets of thermocouple probe rakes positioned across each layer of the test structure and subjected to temperature and heat flux from a realistic, but contained, fire. This allowed capture of the thermal response of the wall assemblies to the prescribed exposure and assessment of the observed thermal degradation phenomena relative to the temperatures measured in the degrading walls. Results show that temperatures measured in the small-scale fire tests may provide a good indication of temperature evolution and heat transfer within full-scale wall assemblies during large-scale fire tests. Further, comparable levels of fire damage and thermal degradation (shrinking, charring, melting, self-heating) of the studied building products were obtained across the two scales of fire testing. Thus, the utility of studying thermal degradation of building materials and construction assemblies in the context of energy-efficient building envelopes at both the small- and large-scales was demonstrated. In combination, the novel set of experimental data obtained via Phase 1 and 2 of this research may guide formulation of advanced numerical simulation and design tools for predicting fire performance of individual building materials and their interactions in exterior wall assemblies when subject to realistic fire exposures.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207