MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SBiPV Phase 1: Numerical Fire Modeling of PV Modules with Thermodynamic Properties Optimization

2025· article· en· W7090730473 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone calorimeterIgnition systemEmissivityCalorimeter (particle physics)Flame spreadThermalPhotovoltaic systemPhase-change materialRadiant heating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Numerical fire models of photovoltaic (PV) modules are crucial for fire safety in building integration, supporting fire safety engineering analyses in designing such PV modules. This study develops a numerical fire model for PV panels using the ‘SPyro’ pyrolysis sub-model within Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), which enhances pyrolysis modeling through direct incorporation of cone calorimeter heat release rate per unit area (HRRPUA) data. Eight cone calorimeter experiments, exposing both glass and plastic sides of PV panels to 40, 50, 70, and 80 kW/m 2 incident heat fluxes, were conducted for calibration. The ‘SPyro’ sub-model utilizes experimental time-dependent HRRPUA curves to predict heat release. Thermodynamic properties, including ignition temperature and emissivity, significantly influence the simulated heat release rate (HRR). Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used to optimize these parameters by minimizing the deviation between simulated and experimental HRRPUA. Optimized emissivity values were 0.6 for glass and 0.7 for plastic, with ignition temperatures of 350 °C and 310 °C, respectively. Other thermodynamic parameters, such as material densities, thermal conductivities and specific heats were obtained from the literature. Comparing the numerical and experimental HRRPUA after using the optimized thermodynamic properties shows good agreement, especially regarding ignition time. Furthermore, results show that careful selection and optimization of input variables is crucial in using the ‘SPyro’ sub-model. This enables the model to be used in fire scenarios where fire spread over PV panels is an important fire hazard and important fire behavior characteristic for risk assessment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207