MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063167787 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21988

Tribological contact stability of hard and soft cleaning projectiles

2014· article· en· W2063167787 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M.R. Malayeri, M.R. Jalalirad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsProjectileMaterials scienceRange of a projectileTribologyMechanicsStiffnessComposite materialTube (container)PhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tribological properties of projectiles, i.e. contact stability with the tube through which they pass, are of prime importance for the selection of soft or hard projectiles for on‐line cleaning of tubular exchangers. To do so, this study proposes two methods of firstly measuring pressure in the back of projectiles under the force of flow and secondly the shear by mechanical force using a tensometer. The experimental results show that hard projectiles exert a much higher mechanical shear on the surface, nevertheless much lower hydrodynamic shear under the propulsion of flow. This is mainly due to reduced and unstable contact area between the projectile and tube surface. Accordingly a new term “contact stability or Z factor” is proposed which has a strong relation to the stiffness of projectiles. The Z factor is low for hard projectiles and vice versa. A set of fouling runs, under similar operating conditions, is also conducted for hard and soft projectiles as well as when no projectile is shot. While a hard projectile can exert a shear of 12‐fold larger than a soft projectile, its cleanability is not appreciably better. The reason was attributed to poor contact stability with the tube surface.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207