On the Transition From Non-Bleve to Bleve Failure for a 1.8 m3 Propane Tank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of fire tests were conducted on nine, 1.8 m 3 (500 US gal) ASME code propane pressure vessels to study the significance of pressure relief valve behavior on tank survivability to fire impingement. In these tests three tanks ruptured (i.e., finite failure) and six boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVEd) (total loss of containment). The difference between the BLEVE and non-BLEVE failures was due to a difference in the fire conditions. It is believed that these tests show some insight into the BLEVE process. In all tests the fire consisted of an array of nominal 590 kW (2 MBTU/h) liquid propane burners. A pool fire was not used because of the uncontrolled nature of open pool fires. It was believed that very repeatable fire conditions could be achieved by using a series of burners. In the tests where the outcome was a non-BLEVE there were two burners mounted 30 cm above the tank on the tank vapor space. These burners were used to weaken the steel and to initiate a failure. To heat the liquid, there were between 4 and 12 burners applied below the liquid level. When one burner was added on the vapor space, all of the remaining tanks BLEVEd. This was true over a range of fill levels (at failure) of between 10% and 50% by volume. It is believed this added burner was just enough to weaken the tank so that any initial rupture would grow towards a total loss of containment and BLEVE. This paper presents the details of this test series and shows how severely heated length and liquid energy affected the outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".