MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200138924 · doi:10.1115/1.4053295

The Cavitation Issue in Asymmetrical Axial-Piston Pumps

2021· article· en· W4200138924 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Koury Costa, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxial piston pumpPiston pumpHydraulic pumpPiston (optics)CavitationHydraulic cylinderMechanical engineeringPlunger pumpCylinderVariable displacement pumpFlow (mathematics)Reciprocating pumpHydrostatic equilibriumRadial piston pumpHydraulic machineryGear pumpCompensation (psychology)Control theory (sociology)Axial-flow pumpMechanicsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pump-controlled single-rod hydraulic actuators have long been the subject of intensive research toward building valve-less, more efficient systems. The main challenge is to deal with the uneven flows into and out of the differential cylinders. Over the past few years, several hydraulic circuits providing flow compensation have been proposed using hydrostatic pumps with identical input and output flows. However, one alternative solution would be to use a pump, whose input/output flow ratio matches the area ratio of the differential cylinder. Typical design and prototyping of the so-called asymmetrical pumps have been well reported previously. In this paper, we theoretically study the flow behavior in a common design of asymmetrical axial-piston pumps and demonstrate some serious internal flow characteristics that can drastically limit the performance and range of operation of these pumps. Cavitation is the main problem to be addressed, and cannot be overlooked because of the very nature of the pump design.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207