MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1890349205 · doi:10.1115/1.4031722

Measurements of the Stack Metal Temperature During a Natural Gas Blowdown Event Through a Full-Bore Blowdown Valve

2015· article· en· W1890349205 on OpenAlexaff
C. Hartloper, K. K. Botros, J. de Vries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoiler blowdownStack (abstract data type)Natural gasMaterials scienceMechanicsEngineeringWaste managementMechanical engineeringInlet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were used in conjunction with a compressible flow model to investigate the temperature recovery phenomenon along a blowdown stack during a high-pressure natural gas pipeline blowdown. The test rig involved instrumented 2 in. blowdown stacks mounted on a full-bore valve. Stacks with two wall thicknesses and stagnation pressures of approximately 3000 kPa-a and 5600 kPa-g were tested, giving a total of four test cases. Using the compressible flow model, which was calibrated using static pressure measurements, the stack-gas temperature was calculated to range from −38 °C to −18 °C for the four test cases. The respective stack wall temperatures were measured to range between −13 °C and 0 °C; thus, the temperature recovery ranged between 18 °C and 26 °C. Empirical correlations available in the literature, which were developed for aeronautical applications, were tested against the experimental results. Poor agreement was found between the measured temperature recovery factor and that predicted by five empirical correlations: the coefficient of determination (R2) between the measured and correlation-calculated recovery factor was found to be negative for all five correlations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207