MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051065020 · doi:10.1115/1.4029524

Stress Analysis of Packed Stuffing-Boxes

2015· article· en· W2051065020 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Kazeminia, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural integrityFinite element methodStructural engineeringLeakEngineeringStress (linguistics)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Packed stuffing-boxes are mechanical sealing systems that are extensively used in pressurized equipment such as valves and pumps. Yet there is no standard design procedure in use to verify their mechanical integrity and leak tightness. It is only recently that standard test procedures to qualify packing materials have been suggested for adoption in both North America and Europe. Nonetheless the assessment of the structural integrity of the housing requires a well-documented design procedure to insure safe use of packed stuffing-boxes. While the packing contact stress with the side walls is predictable using existing models there is no analytical methodology to verify the stresses and strains in the stuffing-box housing. This paper presents an analytical model that analyzes the stresses and strains of the stuffing-box components including the packing rings. The developed model is validated both numerically using FEM (finite element method) and experimentally on an instrumented packed stuffing-box rig that is specially designed to measure the structural integrity and leakage tightness of different packing materials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207