MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035609380 · doi:10.3390/pr8060685

Investigating Vapour Cloud Explosion Dynamic Fatality Risk on Offshore Platforms by Using a Grid-Based Framework

2020· article· en· W3035609380 on OpenAlexaff
Usama Muhammad Niazi, Mohammad Shakir Nasif, Masdi Muhammad, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceCloud computingEngineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer securityGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability of petroleum offshore platform systems affects human safety and well-being; hence, it should be considered in plant design and operation in order to determine its effect on human fatality risk. Methane Vapour Cloud Explosions (VCE) in offshore platforms are known to be one of the fatal potential accidents that can be attributed to failure in plant safety systems. Traditional Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) lacks in providing microlevel risk assessment studies and are unable to update risk with the passage of time. This study proposes a grid-based dynamic risk analysis framework for analysing the effect of VCEs on the risk of human fatality in an offshore platform. Flame Acceleration Simulator (FLACS), which is a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software, is used to model VCEs, taking into account different wind and leakage conditions. To estimate the dynamic risk, Bayesian Inference (BI) is utilised using Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) data. The proposed framework offers the advantage of facilitating microlevel risk analysis by utilising a grid-based approach and providing grid-by-grid risk mapping. Increasing the wind speed (from 3 to 7 m/s) resulted in maximum increase of 21% in risk values. Furthermore, the integration of BI with FLACS in the grid-based framework effectively estimates risk as a function of time and space; the dynamic risk analysis revealed up to 68% increase in human fatality risk recorded from year one to year five.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207