Establishing a safety factor for the distribution density of compressed-air foam and evaluating CAF's extinguishing performance on free-flowing spill fires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compressed-air foam (CAF) has been proven to be an effective fire suppression material for both class A and B fires. Comparison testing between CAF and standard foam water sprinklers had been conducted previously to quantify the amount of CAF required to outperform a foam water sprinkler system in extinguishing a liquid fuel pan fire and provide superior burn-back protection as specified in the UL162 Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates standard. Concerns about variations in the delivered CAF density due to fluctuating water supply pressures and its performance on actual spill fires have been raised in the industry.This paper describes a series of full-scale Class B fire tests designed to address these concerns. Tests were conducted, using the fire test method described in the UL162 Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates standard, to establish minimum and maximum delivered densities of CAF by varying the water supply pressures. A safety factor could then be associated with the normal design application density. Tests were also conducted on a 6 m by 6 m poured concrete slab to compare CAF and standard foam water sprinklers in extinguishing free flowing heptane spill fires with and without shielded areas. These fires ranged in size from 4.65 m2 to 13 m2.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".