Performance of stairwell pressurization system with open stairwell doors (RP-1447)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) conducted full-scale fire experiments to investigate whether pressure compensating systems are neededtomaintaintenable conditions within pressurized stairwells. Ten tests were conducted in the NRC 10-story test facility with the stairwell in the facility pressurized. The tests were conducted with the stairwell door on the fire floor closed and selected stairwell doors on the other floors open. Two fire scenarios with a shielded sprinklered fire and a nonsprinklered fire were tested with varying number and location of open stairwell doors. Tenability analyses were conducted with experimental test results to investigate the performance of the pressurized stairwell with and without pressure compensating systems. Without compensating for pressure losses, the pressure difference across the stairwell door on the fire floor decreased considerably with open stairwell doors. However, a noncompensated stairwell remained tenable for 30 minutes as long as the door on the fire floor was closed both for the shielded sprinkleredfire andthe nonsprinkleredfire scenarios. It is concluded that if the base pressurization system meets the requirement of the design pressure difference with a proper arrangement of air injection points, the stairwell will remain tenable as long as the door on the fire floor is closed for both sprinklered and nonsprinkled fire scenarios used in the tests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".