Research On Gas Explosion Pressure Relief Effect Of Explosion Proof Covers With Different Opening Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The explosion proof covers opening process under the action of the gas explosion shock wave have been numerically simulated with three different opening structures: up-down moving type, external rotation type, internal rotation type.It has been obtained that an explosion proof cover opening structure that is conducive to rapid pressure relief from explosive shock waves.First of all, a small-size air shaft fan explosion proof cover explosion propagation experimental system was set up, and gas explosion shock wave propagation experiments were carried out.The mathematical models of gas explosion shock wave propagation were determined by comparing the experimental results with the numerical simulation results.A numerical simulation study was conducted on the response of explosion proof covers with three types of opening structures under the impact load of gas explosion.The study shows that the explosion proof cover with up-down moving opening structure opens the fastest under the disaster conditions, and the overpressure values both on the explosion proof cover and on the blades of the main ventilator are the smallest.When a gas explosion occurs in the underground, the explosion proof cover with up-down moving opening structure can open more quickly to relieve the explosion shock wave.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".