Thermal Contact Resistance at a Metal Foam-Solid Surface Interface
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
Accurate information on heat transfer and temperature distribution in metal foams is necessary for design and modeling of thermal-hydraulic systems incorporating metal foams. The analysis of this process requires determination of the effective thermal conductivity as well as the thermal contact resistance (TCR) associated with the interface between the metal foams and adjacent surfaces/layers. In the present study, a test bed that allows the separation of effective thermal conductivity and thermal contact resistance in metal foams is described. Measurements are performed in a vacuum under varying compressive loads using ERG Duocel aluminum foam samples with different porosities and pore densities. Also, a graphical method associated with a computer code is developed to demonstrate the distribution of contact spots and estimate the real contact area at the interface. Our results show that the porosity and the effective thermal conductivity remain unchanged with the variation of compression in the range of 0 to 2 MPa; but TCR decreases significantly with pressure due to an increase in the real contact area at the interface. Moreover, the ratio of real to nominal contact area varies between 0 to 0.013, depending upon the compressive force, porosity, and surface characteristics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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