MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224324527 · doi:10.4043/31793-ms

Factors Required for the Lifetime Protection of Structures and Equipment Requiring Passive Fire Protection in Harsh Offshore Environments

2022· article· en· W4224324527 on OpenAlex
Robin John Wade

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEngineering and Material Science Research
Canadian institutionsAkzoNobel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFire protectionProcess (computing)Scope (computer science)Asset (computer security)EngineeringArchitectural engineeringForensic engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceCivil engineeringComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives / Scope Many factors impact the longevity of passive fire protection which is required to protect structural steel and process equipment from degradation in harsh offshore conditions and accidental fire scenarios. This paper reviews the impact installation, environmental and operational processes have on the lifetime expectations of passive fire protection and subsequently the assets on which the passive fire protection has been applied. Methods, Procedures, Processes A review of key processes is made mapping out the stress and strain impact (maximum and fatigue) expected to be imposed on thick film passive fire protection coatings. Industry recognized standards, testing protocols and industry reviews are discussed highlighting where the expected stress and strain impacts are accounted for and where there are deficiencies yet to be addressed. Examples from the real world show how epoxy passive fire protection has met the challenge over the past 40 years and where further scrutiny is required in design and installation. Results, Observations, Conclusions Current standards have been heavily focused on temperate climates around the world at the expense of extreme cold and hot climates and process conditions. Furthermore, installation and construction methods have been developed which may inadvertently place greater strain on passive fire protection systems prior to in-service use. As such performance expectations are not always realized from the project specifications. New proposals and discussions have reviewed what is required to capture performance expectations of modern-day assets and passive fire protection systems. Whilst asset owners see merit in many of the proposals there is a significant upscaling of costs required to realize these tests and validate solutions. As a result of a limited scope of current testing, there is a significant risk that passive fire protection is treated as a "commodity item" rather than a "specialised safety critical element" given that it is expected to function for many decades in a multitude of different service environments. Novel/Additive Information Revisions to industry standard tests are discussed along with the basis for performance expectations. New proposals for allowing for wider environmental and process conditions to be considered. The impact of treating passive fire protection as a commodity item as opposed to a specialized safety critical element is a key highlight

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.227 · 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