Conclusions (JRC Sample Clauses

Conclusions (JRC. ‌ In the XXXXXX project the Hydrogen Model Evaluation Protocol (HYMEP) has been developed for the assessment of the accuracy and suitability of CFD models in the area of hydrogen safety. Previous experience related to the development of model evaluation protocols in other fields (MEG, XXXXX, SMEDIS and LNG protocol) have been taken into account. A Model Evaluation Group (MEG) was established by the European Commission in 1994 and produced a generic evaluation protocol for consequence models (XXXXX 1996). Following the generic evaluation protocol, expert groups were set up with the purpose of developing an evaluation protocol in specific areas like heavy gas dispersion (HGD) and gas explosions (XXXXX 1996). The HGD protocol was developed further by the project Scientific Model Evaluation Techniques Applied to Dense Gas Dispersion Models in Complex Situations (SMEDIS) (Daish et al. 2000). More recently a model evaluation protocol for LNG dispersion models was developed (Ivings et al. 2007). The HYMEP includes 6 main stages: scientific assessment, verification, sensitivity study, validation, statistical analysis, and finally an assessment report. Practically all aspects of hydrogen safety phenomena have been considered in the document: release, mixing and dispersion of gaseous and liquid hydrogen, ignition, fire, deflagration, deflagration-to-detonation transition and detonation. HYMEP is applicable to other safety-related phenomena such as tank filling, consequences of catastrophic rupture of a high-pressure hydrogen tank in a fire (blast wave and fireball), etc. The XXXXXX consortium produced 4 complementary reports as supporting documents for the HYMEP: • Review (XXXXXX consortium, D2.1 2014) and • Critical analysis (XXXXXX consortium, D2.2 2015) of the state-of-the-art of the CFD modelling for safety analysis in fuel cell and hydrogen (FCH) technologies • Guide to CFD best practice (XXXXXX consortium, D3.2 2016)
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Conclusions (JRC

  • Conclusione La presente Licenza resterà xxxxxx xxxx xxxx sua conclusione. Apple porrà termine automaticamente e senza preavviso ai diritti garantiti da questa Licenza in caso di inadempienza di qualsiasi xxxxxxx xxxxx Licenza stessa. In seguito alla conclusione di questa Licenza è fatto obbligo di interrompere l’utilizzo del Software Apple e di distruggere tutte le copie, totali o parziali, del medesimo. I paragrafi 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 e 11 della presente Licenza rimarranno validi anche dopo la conclusione della stessa.

  • Conclusions 1. There is no basis for finding that the agreement discriminates against any telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement.

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Extensions - Special Circumstances An employee shall be entitled to extend the maternity leave by up to an additional six (6) consecutive weeks' leave without pay where a physician certifies the employee as unable to return to work for medical reasons related to the birth. An employee shall be entitled to extend the parental leave by up to an additional five (5) consecutive weeks' leave without pay where the child is at least six (6) months of age before coming into the employee's care and custody and the child is certified as suffering from a physical, psychological or emotional condition. Provided however, that in no case shall the combined maternity and parental leave exceed fifty-two (52) consecutive weeks following the commencement of the leave.

  • Reviewing your bill (a) If you disagree with the amount you have been charged, you can ask us to review your bill in accordance with our standard complaints and dispute resolution procedures.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • FISCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recognizing the value of Union input on behalf of employees, the parties agree to the following:

  • Impartial Decisions The Design Professional is the interpreter of the conditions of the Construction Contract and the judge of its performance, in the first instance. The Design Professional shall side neither with the Owner nor with the Contractor, but shall use its powers to enforce performance by both.

  • Decisions of the Board The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chairperson shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be final and binding and enforceable on all parties, but in no event shall the Board of Arbitration have the power to change this Agreement or to alter, modify or amend any of its provisions. However, the Board shall have the power to dispose of any discharge or a discipline grievance by any arrangement which in its opinion it deems just and equitable.

  • EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 12.1 DBS shall not be responsible or liable to the Cardmember or any Cardholder for any loss or damage incurred or suffered as a consequence of:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.