Determination of Temperature Distribution during Heat Treatment of Forgings: Simulation and Experiment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combination of transient computational fluid dynamics simulations of a gas-fired heat treatment furnace and experimental validation were carried out to investigate the applicability of equilibrium non-premix combustion model and the effect of different turbulence models on the thermal interactions inside the furnace. Thermal interactions analyses based on temperature measurements on an instrumented large size block were performed at different locations of the forged blocks. A good agreement, with a maximum deviation of about 4%, was obtained using a one-third periodic model of the furnace. Results indicated that the chemical equilibrium non-premix combustion model could effectively be employed for combustion modeling and subsequently products’ temperature predictions. A temperature non-uniformity of up to 331 K was determined on the surface of the forgings due to furnace geometrical design and loading pattern. Prediction of turbulence dissipation rate to turbulence kinetic energy ratio by different turbulence models could significantly affect the combustion predictions and product temperatures. Reynolds stress model was found as the most reliable turbulence model and the realizable k-epsilon model could reasonably predict the global block temperature. While, Shear stress transport k-omega model over-predicted the block temperature, it showed reasonable results in stagnation region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it