MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296918970 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2010p0625

Effect of Using Liquid Feedstock in a High Pressure Cold Spray Nozzle

2010· article· en· W4296918970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Farvardin, O. Stier, V. Luthen, A. Dolatabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleSpray characteristicsSpray nozzleMaterials scienceMechanicsEvaporationInjectorTwo-phase flowAgglomerateThermodynamicsFlow (mathematics)Composite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates the effect of water injection in the high pressure chamber of a cold spray nozzle. A de Laval nozzle geometry with constant back pressure and temperature is modeled numerically using Reynolds Stress Model coupled equations. Water spray with a droplet size of 10 – 100 μm is modeled using both uniform and Rosin-Rammler size distributions. The two-phase flow of gas-liquid is modeled using an unsteady discrete phase mass source with two-way coupling with the main gas flow. Upon injection, the droplets in the water spray evaporate while travelling through the nozzle due to momentum and energy exchange with the gas flow. The evaporation behavior in presence of water content is modeled and a correlation between the initial diameter and the diameter just before the throat is obtained. As a result, the proper droplet size distribution with a fully evaporative spray can be used as a carrier of nano-particles in cold spray nozzles. Having the results, guide us to substitute the un-evaporated part of the droplet with an equal diameter agglomerate of nano particles and find a minimum fraction of nano particles suspended in the liquid which guarantees fully evaporative liquid spray injection.

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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207