The survivability of steel and aluminum 33.5 pound propane cylinders in fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract All pressure cylinders in North America used for liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) must meet the standards set by the Compressed Gas Association (CGA), regardless of whether they are made of steel or aluminum. However, there is anecdotal evidence from accidents that suggests that an aluminum propane cylinder is much more likely to fail than a steel one when exposed to fire in an accident. In order to test and quantify this, a series of fire tests were performed on standard 33.5 lb (DOT 4E240) propane cylinders. Three aluminum cylinders and three steel cylinders were tested under three different fire conditions, covering a range of fire engulfment severity. In all cases, the cylinders were horizontal and the fire was directed onto the side and top of the cylinders. In matching tests, all 3 aluminum cylinders failed in less than 10 minutes, including one boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), while all 3 steel cylinders did not fail even after more than 40 minutes in the fire. This paper presents the results and an analysis of the fire test data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".