MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2303769711

An Experimental Investigation of Ignition Propensity of Hot Work Processes in the Nuclear Industry

2014· dissertation· en· W2303769711 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Mikkelsen

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2014
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueFire dynamics and safety research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWork (physics)Hot workEngineeringForensic engineeringFire protectionMechanical engineeringCivil engineeringMaterials science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The National Fire Code of Canada (NFCC) is one model code which regulates hot work in Canada. The code specifies that hot work processes need only create heat to be considered hot work processes, and requires that precautions taken adhere to those in Canadian Standards Association (CSA) W117.2, which is intended for welding, cutting and allied processes. CSA W117.2 requires a 15 m spherical radius of separation in which combustibles are ideally relocated or, at minimum, be protected with fire blankets. Openings, cracks and other locations in which sparks or hot particles must also be protected within this distance. Additionally CSA W117.2 requires a fire watch during, and one hour following the completion of the work. The NFCC stipulates more stringent requirements on the fire watch than CSA W117.2, requiring a check back 4 hours after the work. The code in its current form requires the same precautions be taken when using a soldering iron or epoxy resin as when using an oxyacetylene torch to flame cut steel. The lack of hazard characterization of hot work processes, and the umbrella prescription of required fire safety precautions can result in insufficient measures to prevent fires in some scenarios, and inordinate precautionary measures in others. While not applicable law in all jurisdictions, the NFCC is relied on in various Canadian industries for regulative purposes. Nuclear power generation in Canada is one such industry facing onerous fire protection costs resulting from following these precautions for the smallest of jobs requiring heat producing tools. The literature review highlights the dearth of scientific knowledge regarding the propensity of hot work as an ignition source and how this shortcoming manifests itself in issues across the various standards governing hot work practices.
\n
\nThe objective of this research is to assess fire hazards resulting from various processes considered hot work under the National Fire Code of Canada (NFCC). Due to the breadth of processes covered by the NFCC, a spectrum of hot work activities was investigated from processes as innocuous as the application of heated adhesive, to well known sources of ignition such as a variety of welding processes, oxyacetylene cutting and plasma cutting. To streamline the hazard assessment, processes were categorised into three groups based upon expected hazards such that testing could focus on the most prominent ignition danger presented by each. The groups were those processes exhibiting hot surface ignition hazards, processes with hot surface ignition hazards in addition to limited potential to generate hot particles, and those processes in which the generation of significant quantities of spark and hot particles is guaranteed.
\n
\nFor the first two process categories, experimentation focused on determining a critical process temperature with which to rank processes and also compare with ignition temperatures of combustibles commonly involved in hot work fires. The critical process temperature was determined as the highest measured temperature of the workpiece or tool during the chosen process and was typically measured with the use of thermocouples and infrared thermography. Characterization of any hot particles in the second category was performed using infrared thermography, and in some cases, thermal paper.
\n
\nLiterature sources indicated that sparks and hot particles are the largest factor in hot work fires, so specialised methodology was developed for the third category of processes to characterise the distribution of many thousands of hot work particles generated during welding, thermal cutting and other hot particle producing work. The distributions collected were used to determine the area enveloped by the ignition hazard of hot particles as well as areas encompassing the highest threat to combustibles in relative terms.
\n
\nSeveral of the processes as studied were found not to exhibit any measurable form of ignition hazard, including forms of manual sanding and filing and rotary filing of steel. Heated adhesive, cutting steel with a reciprocating saw and drilling of steel were shown to exhibit moderate degrees of hazard with temperature rise of 195\\degree C or less, suggesting potential hazard to a limited group of combustibles. Welding and cutting processes were shown to have a relative ignition potential across a wide area. Typical welding procedures produced hot particles which travelled a maximum of approximately 3 - 4 m while thermal cutting processes ejected sparks, slag and hot particles up to 9.8 m from the work.
\n
\nIncorporated properly into updated standards and codes, the results and findings of this research could drastically improve the Canadian model codes regarding the regulation of hot work by decreasing cost and difficulty for Canadian Industry without increasing the risk of loss.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,286
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,600

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,210
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetFire dynamics and safety researchTravaux en français237 207