Fuels Characterization for National Research Council Canada 2-m Pool Fire Test Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a detailed analysis of the physical and chemical properties of three liquid hydrocarbon fuels: heptane, Bakken crude, and a diluted bitumen, that were subsequently tested in a series of 2-m pool fire experiments at Sandia National Laboratories for the National Research Council Canada. Properties such as relative density, vapor pressure (VPCR x ), composition, and heat of combustion were evaluated. The heptane analysis, with relative density = 0.69 (at 15C), confirmed that the material tested was consistent with high-purity (>99%) n-heptane. The Bakken crude, with a relative density = 0.81 (at 15C), exhibited a vapor pressure by VPCR 0.2 (37.8C) in the range 120-157 kPa. The dilbit, with a relative density = 0.92 (at 15C) exhibited a vapor pressure by VPCR 0.2 (37.8C) in the range 85-98 kPa. Solids remaining in the test pans after the pool fires were also collected and weighed. No detectable solids were left after the heptane burns. In contrast, the crude oils left some brittle, black solid residue. On average, dilbit pool fires left about 40 more residue by mass than Bakken pool fires for equivalent mass of fuel feed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".