MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236487839 · doi:10.4271/2009-01-0011

Developing Safety Standards for FCVs and Hydrogen Vehicles

2009· article· en· W4236487839 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn W. Scheffler, Jake DeVaal, Gery J. Kissel, Michael Veenstra, Tommy Chang, Naoki Kinoshita, Matt McClory, Hajime Fukumoto, Marcel L. Halberstadt, Jesse Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogenBusinessAutomotive engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SAE Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) Safety Working Group has been addressing FCV safety for over 9 years. The initial document, SAE J2578, was published in 2002. SAE J2578 has been valuable as a Recommended Practice for FCV development with regard to the identification of hazards and the definition of countermeasures to mitigate these hazards such that FCVs can be operated in the same manner as conventional gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE)-powered vehicles. SAE J2578 is currently being revised so that it will continue to be relevant as FCV development moves forward. For example, test methods were refined to verify the acceptability of hydrogen discharges when parking in residential garages and commercial structures and after crash tests prescribed by government regulation, and electrical requirements were updated to reflect the complexities of modern electrical circuits which interconnect both AC and DC circuits to improve efficiency and reduce cost. An update to SAE J1766 for post-crash electrical safety was also published in 2008 to reflect unique aspects of FCVs and to harmonize electrical requirements with international standards. In addition to revising the SAE J2578 and J1766, the Working Group also published a new Technical Information Report (TIR) for vehicular hydrogen systems (SAE J2579). The original focus of this document was to define systems-level, performance-based requirements for compressed hydrogen storage systems, as most FCVs currently use this form of storage. The TIR is being used as a basis of verification testing that is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness and practicality of the test methods that can be used to qualify compressed hydrogen storage systems. Revision to the TIR is also in progress based on test experience, and it is envisioned that additional revisions will be made periodically until the document can be upgraded and published as a Recommended Practice. The objective of these documents is to address long-term real-world system safety while still facilitating rapid advances by the industry.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.012

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical SystemsSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207