The Effect of Pressure Relief Valve Blowdown and Fire Conditions on the Thermo-Hydraulics Within a Pressure Vessel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the summers of 2000 and 2001, a series of controlled fire tests were conducted on horizontal 1890liter (500 US gallon) propane pressure vessels. The test vessels were instrumented with pressure transducers, liquid space, vapor space, and wall thermocouples, and an instrumented flow nozzle in place of a pressure relief valve (PRV). A computer controlled PRV was used to control pressure. The vessels were heated using high momentum, liquid propane utility torches. Open pool fires were not used for the testing because they are strongly affected by wind. These wind effects make it almost impossible to have repeatable test conditions. The fire conditions used were calibrated to give heat inputs similar to a luminous hydrocarbon pool fire with an effective blackbody temperature in the range of 850°C±50°C. PRV blowdown (i.e., blowdown=poppressure−reclosepressure) and fire conditions were varied in this test series while all other input parameters were held constant. The fire conditions were varied by changing the number of burners applied to the vessel wall areas wetted by liquid and vapor. It was found that the vessel content’s response and energy storage varied according to the fire conditions and the PRV operation. The location and quantity of the burners affected the thermal stratification within the liquid, and the liquid swelling (due to vapor generation in the liquid) at the liquid∕vapor interface. The blowdown of the PRV affected the average vessel pressure, average liquid temperature, and time to temperature destratification in the liquid. Large blowdown also delayed thermal rupture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".