Effects of wind in ember- and radiation-coupled ignition in fuel bed experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experimental investigations on the behaviour of ignition on the combined effects of wind, radiant heating, and ember accumulation, simulating short-spotting ignition of common construction materials, including plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), and polyisocyanurate (PIR) were conducted. Experiments were limited to red-hot glowing embers that were deposited sequentially at an ember flux rate of ∼2.0 pcs/m2s. The wind velocity, amount of radiant heating, and initial radiant heat exposure time were varied in this study. The results indicated that wind enhances ember combustion by increasing oxygen availability and turbulent mixing, leading to a higher probability of ignition, particularly for plywood. Wind also reduces the number of embers required to achieve ignition. However, at lower heat fluxes, wind can hinder ignition by dispersing volatile gases before they accumulate sufficiently to sustain combustion. This effect was particularly pronounced for PIR samples, where ignition probability decreased under high wind conditions but increased at intermediate wind speeds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".