MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079505696 · doi:10.1115/pvp2005-71389

Predicting Gasket Leak Rates Using a Laminar-Molecular Flow Model

2005· article· en· W2079505696 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasketLaminar flowLeakLeakage (economics)Materials scienceMechanicsHeliumVolumetric flow rateFlow (mathematics)ThermodynamicsComposite materialChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tightness characterization of gaskets used in static seal applications, such as bolted flanged connections, is achieved by performing leakage tests with a single fluid, usually a gas like helium. Attempts made in the past to predict gasket leakage with other gases had limited success unless the leak flow regime through the gasket was predominately laminar, which is not the case with most of the gaskets. In this work, a new gasket leak flow model that combines both molecular and laminar flow regimes is developed to predict the gasket leak rate under different pressures and with different gases. The Laminar-Molecular Flow (LMF) model is first constructed around a reference pressure for which the fraction of the total leakage that occurs through laminar flow channels is established. This fraction is computed using a simple leakage test performed with one gas and at least two different pressures. The model is then tested against experimental leak data obtained from two different gaskets and four gases and is shown to produce accurate predictions.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207