MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025827976 · doi:10.1115/1.4029897

Effects of Grooving in a Hydrostatic Circular Step Thrust Bearing With Porous Facing

2015· article· en· W2025827976 on OpenAlexaff
M. Mahbubur Razzaque, Z. Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tribology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityMaterials scienceGroove (engineering)PorosityPermeability (electromagnetism)Porous mediumGeotechnical engineeringHydrostatic equilibriumInertiaMechanicsStructural engineeringComposite materialGeologyEngineeringPhysicsMetallurgyMembraneClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of grooving in a porous faced hydrostatic circular step thrust bearing are investigated using a mathematical model based on the narrow groove theory (NGT). It is shown that enhancement of load capacity by grooving the step is possible at moderate level of permeability of the porous facing. Load capacity drops sharply with the increase of porous facing thickness. However, this drop in load capacity occurs mostly within a small thickness of the porous facing. Considering the coupled effects of permeability and inertia, it is recommended that the dimensionless step location should be 0.5–0.8 and the dimensionless step height should be less than five to take advantage of grooving. The groove geometric parameters such as groove inclination angle, fraction of grooved area and groove depth corresponding to the maximum load capacity are found to be the same for both with and without porous facing. However, with porous facing, the sensitivity of the load capacity on the groove parameters reduces. At high level of permeability, the effects of grooves may become insignificant because of high seepage flow through the porous facing.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TribologySame topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207