MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570131950 · doi:10.3303/cet1648046

Estimating Characteristics of Industrial BLEVEs and VCEs from Observed Condensation Clouds

2016· article· en· W2570131950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Birk Albrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverpressureCondensationShock (circulatory)Cloud computingBoilingEnvironmental scienceShock waveMeteorologyGeologyAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that the passage of a shock wave in a moist atmosphere can produce a condensation cloud that is briefly visible to the human eye. Recent accidents (e.g. Toronto August 2008) involving boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions (BLEVE) and vapour cloud explosions (VCE) have shown such condensation clouds. In this age where video footage of an explosion incident is the norm (i.e. from the smart phone of a remote observer, or from a security video camera) it is very likely that there will be visual evidence of explosions. This evidence may include the size of a condensation cloud from a shock wave. This paper presents an analysis that allows us to estimate the overpressure of the shock wave at the edge of this condensation cloud. In many cases we can also determine the distance to this shock overpressure from the video image. With this overpressure and distance data it is possible to estimate the energy of the explosion and the overpressure and expected damage at other distances. This could be very useful for accident analysis. Limited video footage of BLEVE tests is used to provide and limited validation the method.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207