MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295932009 · doi:10.1021/acsami.6b00187

Reducing Ice Adhesion on Nonsmooth Metallic Surfaces: Wettability and Topography Effects

2016· article· en· W2295932009 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMaterials scienceWettingAdhesionMetalComposite materialNanotechnologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of ice formation and accretion on external surfaces range from being mildly annoying to potentially life-threatening. Ice-shedding materials, which lower the adhesion strength of ice to its surface, have recently received renewed research attention as a means to circumvent the problem of icing. In this work, we investigate how surface wettability and surface topography influence the ice adhesion strength on three different surfaces: (i) superhydrophobic laser-inscribed square pillars on copper, (ii) stainless steel 316 Dutch-weave meshes, and (iii) multiwalled carbon nanotube-covered steel meshes. The finest stainless steel mesh displayed the best performance with a 93% decrease in ice adhesion relative to polished stainless steel, while the superhydrophobic square pillars exhibited an increase in ice adhesion by up to 67% relative to polished copper. Comparisons of dynamic contact angles revealed little correlation between surface wettability and ice adhesion. On the other hand, by considering the ice formation process and the fracture mechanics at the ice-substrate interface, we found that two competing mechanisms governing ice adhesion strength arise on nonplanar surfaces: (i) mechanical interlocking of the ice within the surface features that enhances adhesion, and (ii) formation of microcracks that act as interfacial stress concentrators, which reduce adhesion. Our analysis provides insight toward new approaches for the design of ice-releasing materials through the use of surface topographies that promote interfacial crack propagation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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