MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523864889 · doi:10.1520/stp159320160023

Experimental Study of Heat Flux in Propane Flash Fires

2016· book-chapter· en· W2523864889 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Paskaluk, M. Y. Ackerman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropaneFlash (photography)Environmental scienceHeat fluxFlux (metallurgy)Nuclear engineeringMaterials scienceMechanicsThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineeringHeat transferMetallurgyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing test methods for determining of thermal protection from fire offered by textiles are typically characterized by the exposure of specimens to a controlled flame and measurement of energy transferred through the specimen. The measured energy transfer is then used to differentiate materials or further processing (burn injury prediction) is used as a basis for comparison. The test conditions are set by measuring the energy transferred to the sensor or sensors in absence of a test specimen. In order to represent a potential hazard and provide good differentiation among tested materials, an exposure heat flux is required that allows for rapid and substantial increase in the temperature of the tested specimen. A specified heat flux of 80–84 kW/m2 is common in both bench-scale and full-scale tests. Because of the use of controlled flame and significant energy transfer rates involved in these tests, there is a common misconception that these test methods constitute a simulation of a particular hazard, especially with regard to the hazard of hydrocarbon flash fires. In order to provide a basis for comparing specified test conditions with real-world hazard conditions, a series of heat flux measurements were performed on propane-fueled flash fires in open air. In each test, an array of heat flux sensors was positioned around a propane source. A large fuel cloud was allowed to form and subsequently ignited using a pilot flame. These experiments were carried out outdoors and as such were subject to prevailing wind currents. Because of the potentially high variability, more than 50 separate fuel releases were undertaken. The output of the array of sensors was used to determine the intensity and duration of each flash fire event. In addition to the array of heat flux sensors, an instrumented mannequin was constructed to measure the heat flux incident on a human form within the flash fire. The results indicate that there was significant variability in the conditions in each fire due to the open air conditions creating unpredictable distribution of fuel and air. Flash fires occurred that were less severe and more severe than the conditions used in standardized laboratory testing.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207