MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766398063 · doi:10.1115/pvp2017-65017

Leak Rates of Gasses Through Packing Seals With Different Analytical Approaches

2017· article· en· W2766398063 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Salah Omar Aweimer, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid, Mehdi Kazeminia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakMaterials sciencePorosityPorous mediumMechanicsVolumetric flow rateLeakage (economics)Boundary value problemComposite materialThermodynamicsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting leakage in packed stuffing boxes is a major engineering challenge to designers and end users. Due to the different working conditions and material products, the determination of the flow regime present in packing rings is not a straightforward task to predict. This paper presents a study on the ability of micro channel flow models to predict leak rates through packing rings made of soft materials such as graphite. A methodology based on the experimental characterization of the porosity parameters is developed to predict leak rates at different compression stress levels. Three different models are compared to predicate the leakage, where the diffusive and second order flow models are derived from Naiver-Stokes equations and incorporate the boundary conditions of an intermediate flow regime to cover the wide range of leak rate levels. The lattice model is based on porous media of packing rings as packing bed (Dp). The flow porosity parameters (Rc,Dp) of the micro channels assumed to simulate the leak paths present in the packing are obtained experimentally. The predicted leak rates from different gasses (He, N2, Ar) are compared to those measured experimentally, in which the set of packing rings is mainly subjected to different gland stresses and pressures.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207