MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884669200 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2016.001

Finite Element Analysis of Vane Geometry for Shear Thinning Materials

2016· article· en· W2884669200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Behzad Nazari, Shahram Niazi, Mahmoud Zohrabi, Douglas W. Bousfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodThinningMaterials scienceShear thinningGeometryShear (geology)Composite materialStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringRheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various materials such as cellulose nanofibers (CNF) suspensions contain non-isotropic structures that can lead to strong shear thinning behaviour in parallel-plate geometries; a slip layer seems to form between the plate and the material in such standard geometries.The link between parallel-plate results and data from vane geometries is not clear in the literature.The power-law viscosity model was used to fit the steady-shear results from parallel-plate geometry.The torquerotation rate results were also obtained from a vane geometry for CNF suspensions at three solids levels (2-4 wt%).A finite element method was used to solve the flow equations for calculating the torque applied on the solid surfaces in the vane geometry.The power-law model gave reasonable results for the prediction of torque.It was shown by shear rate distributions that the shearing layers of the fluid existed predominately at radial positions close to the vane radius and the viscosity value at this shear rate becomes important in determination of the torque.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207