MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996399097

Risk Assessment of Mildly Flammable Refrigerants with los GWP for Heat pump

2020· dissertation· en· W6996399097 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefrigerantHeat pumpRefrigerationHeat pump and refrigeration cycleCoefficient of performanceGlobal-warming potentialFlammable liquidEvaporator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the growing demand for cooling, and taking into account the impact of global warming associated with cooling technologies the global climate commitment to reduce the impact of fluorinated gases and the regulations controlling their use in the European Union has increased . This thesis investigates new refrigerants that have been recently proposed to meet the demands of the heat pumps in the refrigeration industry, which must satisfy the legislative requirements of the F-gas Regulation and facilitate meeting the goals of Montreal and Kyoto Agreement.<br />The fluids R32, R1234ze, R1234yF, R452b and R454b have been theoretically analyzed in comparison with the commonly used fluorinated refrigerant in heat pump: R410A. To compare these refrigerants, an excel sheet has been used to calculate the COP for the different cases studied using the REFPROP computer program to know the thermodynamic data of each fluid. The cases studied are the three different heat pump applications : radiators, radiant floor and fan coil and it has been studied for an evaporator temperature range of -15 to 12 ºC, i.e. the COP has been calculated for eighteen different situations. For all of them, the same conclusion has been concluded: all these five proposed fluids have a higher COP than the fluid to be replaced, R410A. It based on this COP for all the cases studied, the best fluids are R454b and R1234Ze(E). Choosing the fluid R454b as the best alternative because its latent heat and vapour density are higher that R1234ze(E) and therefore the flow and size of the pump is smaller, which generally translates into economic savings.<br />However, this refrigerant shows flammability characteristics. For this reason, this paper is checked the fluid risk by a risk assessment. For this assessment two scenarios are analyzed by numerical model, Plume Model: outside and inside of 20 m2 scenario using a 50 kW heat pump. Concluding on the one hand, that in outside conditions a leak would not enter ignition due to the concentration obtained is less than the minimum necessary. In addition from 200 meters of distance the concentration of this fluid would be zero.<br />And that in the hypothetical case that a jet fire takes place is observed that from 10 meters of the leak there is no more radiation.<br />On the other hand, for the room scenario the calculated concentration would be 550 g/m3. This concentration is higher than the acute toxicity exposure limit (435 g/m3) so it is not safe for a human being to work in the situations described.<br /><br />

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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