Experimental and theoretical investigation of the lower explosion limit of multiphase hybrid mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on experimental and theoretical investigations of the lower explosion limits of two‐ and three‐phase mixtures such as gas‐dust, spray‐gas, dust‐spray, and dust‐gas‐spray. The materials used were lycopodium and brown coal as combustible dusts, methane, and hydrogen as combustible gases and ethanol and isopropanol as sprays (liquid solvent). The experiments were performed in the standardized 20‐L spherical explosion chamber where modifications were done to allow the input of solvents and gases. The test protocol was in accordance with the European standard, EN 14034. The experimental results demonstrate significant enhancements in explosion likelihood brought about by gas or spray admixture with dust and vice versa. They also confirm that a hybrid mixture explosion is possible even when both dust and spray or gas concentrations are respectively lower than their minimum explosible concentration (MEC) and lower explosion limit (LEL). For example, the MEC of brown coal decreases from 250 to 60 g/m 3 , 60 and 100 g/m 3 when small amounts of isopropanol spray, methane gas, and hydrogen gas respectively, were added (even though these concentrations of gases and solvents are all below the LEL of the individual substances). Comparisons have been made between the lower explosible limit of the experimental data and classical models such as those developed by Bartknecht, Le Chatelier, and Jiang and coworkers. This research provides safety practitioners with a practical means to characterize material hazards without the need to perform a large number of tests. © 2019 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 1–13: e12045 2019
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".