MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054091950 · doi:10.4271/2011-01-0251

Establishing Localized Fire Test Methods and Progressing Safety Standards for FCVs and Hydrogen Vehicles

2011· article· en· W2054091950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsGeneral Motors (Canada)Powertech Labs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)HydrogenAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The SAE Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) Safety Working Group has been addressing FCV safety for over 11 years. In the past couple of years, significant attention has been directed toward a revision to the standard for vehicular hydrogen systems, SAE J2579<sup>(<span class="xref">1</span>)</sup>. In addition to streamlining test methodologies for verification of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Systems (CHSSs) as discussed last year,<sup>(<span class="xref">2</span>)</sup> the working group has been considering the effect of vehicle fires, with the major focus on a small or localized fire that could damage the container in the CHSS and allow a burst before the Pressure Relief Device (PRD) can activate and safely vent the compressed hydrogen stored from the container.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Even though there have been no incidents of localized fire causing failure of CHSS in FCVs or hydrogen vehicles, a few incidents of localized fire and subsequent container burst have occurred in Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles.<sup>(<span class="xref">3</span>,<span class="xref">4</span>)</sup> Given the potential severity of such an event, the Safety Working Group decided to address this potential failure mode by developing a new systems level test to demonstrate the performance of the CHSS in the specified fire conditions. Test conditions for the proposed test are based on information derived from actual vehicle fire tests that were conducted both by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) and US automobile manufacturers, and the test set-up is loosely based on preliminary work done by Transport Canada and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the US. The new test method provides the opportunity to verify localized fire resistance of the CHSS and is expected to be published in the next revision of SAE J2579 in 2011.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Concurrent with SAE efforts, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) is developing a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) for FCVs. The published SAE standards are being considered along with ISO and other regional standards as the basis for possible requirements. As technical issues are identified at the GTR meetings, these issues are discussed at the SAE Safety Working Group meetings to see if there are opportunities for improvement of SAE documents to ensure that SAE standards remain relevant during this period of rapid technical growth and initial commercialization.</div></div>

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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