MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899790678 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78179

Investigation on Drag Reduction Through Dimple Machining

2018· article· en· W2899790678 on OpenAlexafffund
Majid TabkhPaz, Lindsay Howell, Zachary Kockerbeck, Simon Park, Ron Hugo

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMaterials scienceDimpleDragPressure dropMachiningReynolds numberSilicone oilMechanicsComposite materialViscosityMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High friction between a fluid and a pipe wall results in increased pumping requirements. This friction contributes to lower production rates and reduced system capacity. Thermal heating, fluid blending, and drag reducing agents (DRA) are commonly used methods for decreasing pressure drop in pipelines. Surface patterns inscribed onto internal pipe walls have also been shown to reduce fluid friction. In this paper, the effects of different surface patterns on the shear between a fluid and a wall are studied. Surfaces with different dimple patterns are investigated. Micro-dimpled patterns on the surface are created using an inclined, flat end micro-milling tool. The surfaces with different dimpled patterns are characterized and tested through morphological, contact angle, and viscosity measurement studies. The effects of the surface patterns are also studied through simulation. A Power Law relationship and apparent fluid viscosity is determined for the low Reynolds numbers investigated. The deepest dimpled surfaces investigated (0.2 mm dimple depth) result in a drag reduction of approximately 20% for silicone oil. Further research and application of the results to transmission pipeline systems are discussed.

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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207