MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011026986 · doi:10.1109/esw41045.2019.9024719

ARC Flash Pressure Door Ejection Measurement

2019· article· en· W3011026986 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Hoagland, Claude Maurice, A. B. Haines, Andre Maurice

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoorsArc flashArc (geometry)WeldingElectric arcComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringElectrodePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of arc blasts pressures have been looked at theoretically for several years but the direct effect to workers, is harder to quantify. A search of the literature does not give any satisfactory quantification for worker danger [1]. Most of the published work focuses on the theory and how to contain or shunt the thermal energy using arc resistant equipment, which is to be applauded. However, most of the equipment in industry is not arc resistant so research on the true extent of the hazard is critical. Most papers, to date, with any worker focus, have measured or predicted noise levels for auditory damage, but there is still no consensus standard or unified method to predict the pressure or thermoacoustic blast created by an arc. The authors explored the effect of copper and steel vapor on arc flash in a 2016 paper [1] which also looked at the speed of an ejected door. That paper evaluated several quantified methods of promising prediction and chose the Crawford-Clark-Doughty [2] paper which correlated well with the paper's test measurements [1]. Crawford-Clark-Doughty predicted that the shear strength of a door's hinge or bolts could be used to predict the force on the door and subsequently on the worker if the door is blown off by the pressure from the arc event. The previous paper [1] had the weakness of not addressing additional build up of pressure should the door be affixed, as real doors are, so this paper chooses two means to affix the door with a light gauge mounting hardware and a heavy gauge mounting hardware. These represent two different levels of shear strength to assess the effect of allowing pressure to build on the force of the door. Additionally, an impact plate and a load cell is used to measure the actual force from the ejected door to estimate the effect on a human worker. More work will need to be done to develop a model but these measurements may lead toward a productive means to develop a model. Note that the literature and anecdotal evidence does not indicate many arc blast injuries and the authors know of no fatalities. It is important to understand if, and, when severe injuries could occur. With the removal of the 40 cal/cm2limit to arc flash exposure in the new 2018 NFPA 70E [3], there is a need to understand where a limit could be needed for worker safety and what fault current and containment size could be dangerous until most equipment is arc resistant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical Fault Detection and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207