English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

A multiple step method was developed to compare the output of CFAST simulations, produced either by the same version of CFAST, or by different versions of the model. Scenarios to be compared are run with CFAST before the method is used, producing files containing a history of the model results. The first step of the comparison method produces a text file of important output variables from each of these history files, corresponding to significant fire phenomena occurring during the course of each fire simulation. The next step of the method is used to compare two such text files, and store their differences. Finally, the last step summarizes the difference information found in one or more files from the previous step. The comparison method can be used to find differences between CFAST runs, and to track changes in the CFAST model and detect if they perform as anticipated. It has been used to compare three CFAST versions through use of a documented set of test files. This set will change as improvements are made to the model. The method can be used to fmd the effects whenever any substantial changes are made to CFAST, and is a useful ho] for any user of the model. This report describes the comparison method in sufficient detail to serve as a user’s guide, provides examples of the method’s use, and discusses ways in which it could be improved and generalized.

A CFAST output comparison method and its use in comparing different CFAST versions