Application of uncertainty quantification techniques in the framework of process safety studies: Advanced dispersion simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the framework of process safety studies, consequence assessment of accidental scenarios is a crucial step affecting the eventual risk profile associated with the facilities under analysis. Conventional models used for consequence assessment are based on integral models, and may not be adequate to cope with the dynamic evolution of accidental scenarios and their three‐dimensional features. On the other hand, consequence assessment models based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approaches are promising to cope with complex scenarios and environments, but setting the simulation introduces relevant uncertainties associated with both the input data, assumptions, and with the modelling of physical effects involved. In the present study, uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques are applied to support advanced safety studies based on CFD simulations of hazardous gas dispersion. Firstly, the accidental scenarios are characterized by defining release scenarios and conditions and quantifying source terms using integral models. At the same time, input meteorological data are gathered. This enables the development of high‐fidelity CFD simulations of gas dispersion based on different input sets and eventually the implementation of UQ techniques. The generalized polynomial chaos (gPC) expansion is employed to obtain hazardous gas concentration based on the variation of wind direction and speed. The present method is applied for the analysis of a real plant featuring a complex layout. The results show the advantages of the present approach by quantifying the influence of meteorological conditions and providing indications for supporting the development of protection systems and emergency measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".