MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981866975

Fire protection in ammunition storage spaces on board naval craft: An evaluation of the water application rate:

2012· article· en· W6981866975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmmunitionFire protectionWater flowVolumetric flow rateWater coolingDiesel fuel
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ammunition storage spaces on naval vessels are commonly fitted with drencher systems that are designed to prevent ordnance reaching a temperature where it might explode due to fast or slow “cook‐off”. Many of these systems are traditional low pressure water spray systems that are required by the Naval Ship Code and class requirements to deliver water at a rate of between 24 ℓ/m2/min and 32 ℓ/m2/min. The origin of this requirement is not entirely clear. The high flow rates are a burden on system design and rapid flooding of the magazines decreases the stability of the ship due to free surface effects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the necessity of high flow rates. In addition, the feasibility of reducing them using a lower flow rate drencher system –if necessary in conjunction with a low pressure water mist system– was investigated. The experiments involved exposure of an instrumented steel tube, representing ordnance, to a diesel pool fire located beneath or beside it. The temperature of the tube was monitored prior to, during and after activation of the fire suppression to ensure that it did not exceed a threshold temperature of 200°C. Flow rates from the drencher system were varied and at lower flows the WMS was activated. For the fire scenarios studied, the results indicated that a flow rate of 32 ℓ/m2/min exceeded that required to keep the temperature of the ordnance below 200 oC. At an application rate of 10 ℓ/m² per minute, the installed drencher system suppressed the fire and the kept the temperature of the ordnance below the threshold. A dual system of drencher combined with water mist system was effective at comparable flow rates. The fire however, although controlled, was not fully extinguished in all cases. This study is part of a trilateral research project between Canada, The Netherlands and Sweden designated FiST. Results contribute to defining the way ahead in the process of evaluation of national requirements for fixed fire fighting systems for magazines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft)Same topicArchitecture, Modernity, and DesignFrench-language works237,207