Analytical and Numerical Evaluation of the Axial Stress Distribution of Two Soft-Packed Stuffing-Box Configurations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stuffing-box packed valves which confine high-pressure fluids are often subjected to leakage failure. The lack of a design procedure and the vulnerability of packing ring sealing materials to withstand different operating conditions are the root cause of the problem. The sealing performance of valves with packed stuffing-box depends on the ability of the assembly to maintain a minimum threshold contact pressure between the packing and the stem and the packing and the housing throughout service operation. The distribution of the contact stresses in the packing materials is a key parameter to efficient sealing performance. This study presents a contact stress modeling study of two different design configurations that are helpful to produce a uniform distribution of the contact stress. The first model is based on the introduction of a variable gap between the packing and the side walls. The second model is based on a multistage loading of the packing rings. The two developed analytical models are validated by comparison with the numerical simulation using FE method and the results show a good agreement. The two design configurations can be used to improve valve sealing performance.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it