Experimental Measurement of Pressure Pulses From a Pulp Screen Rotor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure screens are the most industrially effective way to remove contaminants from a pulp stream, improving the strength, smoothness, and optical qualities of both new and recycled paper. Pressure screens are comprised of two main components: a screen cylinder with narrow slots or small holes and a rotor. The main function of the rotor is to prevent the narrow cylinder apertures from becoming plugged by pulp and debris. In this study, the pressure pulses generated by a novel multi-element foil (MEF) and a single-element foil rotor in a pressure screen were measured at various foil configurations, rotor speeds, and flow rates. The experimental measurements were compared to the results from a computational fluid dynamics model (CFD). Experimental measurements showed that increasing both the angle-of-attack and the flap angle of the MEF increases the magnitude of the negative pressure pulse and reduce the magnitude of the maximum pressure pulse generated by the rotor. At the optimum configurations, the MEF was shown to produce a 126% higher magnitude negative pressure pulse and a 39% lower magnitude positive pressure pulse. It was also found that at higher tip speeds the magnitude of the pressure pulse varies with tip speed squared and the non-dimensional pressure coefficient is Reynolds number independent. Similarly, at higher tip speeds increasing the velocity of the flow through the slots had no effect on the pressure pulse generated by the rotor. At lower rotor speeds, however, the dimensionless pressure was increasingly depending on Reynolds number as slot flow velocity was increased. This is likely due to the increase in slot flow velocity causing the onset of flow separation over the foil. Finally, the numerical model was shown to accurately predict the pressure pulses generated by the MEF at low angles-of-attack and flap angles. However, the model predicted that the foil would stall at lower angles than what was shown experimentally. This is probably because the CFD model used a solid wall boundary condition rather than modeling the slots in the cylinder, preventing low momentum fluid from re-entering the domain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 teacher head, 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".