MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774852013 · doi:10.2495/safe-v7-n2-126-136

Numerical and experimental simulation of spontaneous combustion of coal

2017· article· en· W2774852013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhijin Yu, Wen Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer simulationCombustionSpontaneous combustionCoalEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringWaste managementChemistrySimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, our main aims are to make up for the defects of large-scale coal spontaneous heating tests on trial methods. An unsteady-state numerical model is developed to simulate self-heating in a largescale coal spontaneous heating reactor with experimental conditions. The self-heating process of coal is reproduced successfully, and the main characteristics of nonlinear heating and windward movement of the fire source are obtained during the whole process. By comparison, the simulated and experimental results of the Tianchi coal samples show a good agreement with the temperature rise features and fire source positions. This confirms the validity of the model. Based on the model, a sensitivity analysis is constructed to investigate the influence of the external environment on coal spontaneous heating. The main contents include (1) heat dissipation surroundings; (2) air quantity; (3) air direction. The simulated conclusions contribute to optimizing the experimental parameters and obtaining the shortest spontaneous combustion period. In addition, the model is found to be of great significance for predicting the fire source temperature and position in practical coal mine conditions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207