MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982185169 · doi:10.1115/gt2004-54312

Large-Scale Tests of Pyrotechnically Generated Aerosol Fire Extinguishing Systems for the Protection of Machinery Spaces and Gas Turbine Enclosures in Royal Naval Warships

2004· article· en· W1982185169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Connell, James Glockling, Fiona Neads

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyMarine engineeringCrewAeronauticsEngineeringEnvironmental scienceTurbineMissileIgnition systemAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first Royal Navy Destroyer for over 20 years is due to enter service in 2007. The base design for fire protection of the main machinery space (first shot) and Gas Turbine enclosure is by a carbon dioxide total flooding system. Ministry of Defence policy precludes the use Halon as part of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol on new construction ships. Carbon dioxide although the preferred solution for the T45 Destroyer is inherently toxic and places large demands on storage areas and makes this far from the ideal solution. Since 2001, the T45 Destroyer Warship Integration Team has been advancing the testing of two pyrotechnically generated aerosol systems as a replacement for carbon dioxide systems. Large-scale tests of aerosol agents were carried out at Darchem Flares IMO facility (internal dimensions 10m × 10m × 5m high) near Darlington, UK. The test programme was loosely based around the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) MSC/Circ. 1007 protocol but with greater amounts of clutter in the facility and more representative of a warship’s machinery space. Fire scenarios were also modified to make them more representative of naval circumstances with the pass criteria as specified in IMO MSC/Circ 1007 specification: • Class B fires extinguished within 30 seconds; • 15 minute hold period (no re-ignition); • fuel spray shut off 15 seconds after fire extinguishment; • at the end of hold period fuel spray should be restarted for 15 seconds with no re-ignition evident; • at the end of the test fuel trays must have sufficient fuel remaining to cover bottom of tray. In addition to the large-scale testing aerosol fire testing was conducted on a faithful replica of a Gas Turbine enclosure. The GT mock-up enclosure was designed to replicate in service thermal and airflow conditions within the gas turbine enclosure prior to the fire scenario and release of the agent. A hazard assessment was carried out by a focus group to determine expected fire conditions within the enclosure and these were replicated in a number of fire tests to evaluate the performance of the aerosols. Although derived from a common background and described by common terminology, very stark performance differences were found between the two systems tested. This paper will describe the test facility, tests carried out, performance result’s and proposed future use of pyrotechnic fire suppression aerosols within the Royal Navy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207