MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116532685 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.150918

Quantitative Assessment of Thermal Runaway Risk in a Chemical Reactor: Hybrid Approach

2025· article· W7116532685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Badrtamam Benamrane, Nouara Ouazraoui, Brahim Lakehal, Noureddine Bourmada

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative assessmentThermal runawayRisk assessmentQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Thermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal runaway of a chemical process is a dangerous phenomenon that threatens human life, equipment, installations, and the environment.The aim of our work is to propose a methodology for analyzing and quantitatively assessing the risk of thermal runaway in a polymerization reactor.Firstly, HAZard and OPerability analysis (HAZOP) is used to determine the most critical deviations likely to occur in the polymerization reactor under study and leading to the thermal runaway phenomenon.The various accident sequences are determined and evaluated using event tree analysis (ETA).The causes of the failure of safety barriers implemented in the reactor to prevent the runaway phenomenon are determined using fault tree analysis (FTA).Finally, an economic analysis is carried out to show the economic impact of safety failure barriers on the company.Application results of the proposed methodology show its relevance as a decision-making tool for good industrial risk management.The novelty of this hybrid approach lies in its systematic workflow.Qualitative identification (HAZOP) directly informs quantitative frequency estimation (ETA), which in turn relies on detailed reliability analysis (FTA) to assess safety barrier performance.This integrated methodology not only provides a quantitative risk frequency but also identifies the most critical safety barriers and offers an economic rationale for investment decisions through cost-benefit analysis (CBA), thereby bridging the gap between technical risk assessment and managerial decision-making

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207