MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ICONE23-2168 ON THE MODELING OF GAS FLOW THROUGH POROUS COMPRESSION PACKINGS USED IN VALVE STUFFING-BOXES

2015· article· en· W2634858055 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Kazeminia, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakCompression (physics)PorosityVolumetric flow rateMaterials sciencePorous mediumMechanicsNuclear engineeringPetroleum engineeringComposite materialEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting leak rate through porous compression packing rings is a significant challenge for the design of packed stuffing boxes. Although few studies have been conducted to predict the leak rate through these seals, there is no comprehensive standard procedure to be used to design compression packings for a maximum tolerated leak for a given application. With the ubiquitous use of the yarned packing rings and the strict regulations on fugitive emissions and the new environment protection laws quantification of leak rate through yarned stuffing boxes becomes more than necessary and a tightness criteria based design procedure must be developed. In this study a new approach to predict leak rate through compression packing rings has been developed. It is based on Darcy's model to which Klinkenberg slip effect is incorporated. The predicted leak rates are compared to those measured experimentally using two different graphite-based packing rings subjected to different compression levels and pressures. A good agreement is found between the predicted and the measured leak rates which illustrates the validity of the developed model.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE)Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207