A Full Scale Experimental Study of Fires Following the Rupture of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gas industry has an excellent safety record in operating high pressure transmission pipelines. Nevertheless, it is important that pipeline operators have an understanding of the possible consequences of an accidental gas release, which may ignite, in order to help manage the risks involved. This paper describes two full scale experiments, conducted as part of a research programme into the consequences of pipeline failures, undertaken by an international collaboration of gas companies. The experiments involved the deliberate rupture of a 76km length of 914mm diameter natural gas pipeline operating at a pressure of 60 bar, with the released gas ignited immediately following the failure. Instrumentation was deployed to take detailed measurements, which included the weather conditions, the gas outflow, the size and shape of the resulting fire, and the thermal radiation levels. The results provide important data for the validation of mathematical models, used in developing risk assessment methodologies, and in establishing those standards and design codes for gas pipelines that are risk based.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it