MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306837442 · doi:10.3390/coatings12101578

Compressibility and Rarefaction Effects on Particle Dynamics and Heat Transfer in Aerosol Deposition Process

2022· article· en· W4306837442 on OpenAlexaff
Bahar Farahani, Mehdi Jadidi, Sara Moghtadernejad

Bibliographic record

VenueCoatings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnudsen numberRarefaction (ecology)MechanicsMach numberCompressibilityHeat transferMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)Heat transfer coefficientThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aerosol deposition (AD) method is an emerging coating technique to create a dense ceramic or metal layer on a substrate through the kinetic impaction and cumulative deposition of ultrafine solid particles under near-vacuum conditions. Prediction of the particles’ impact velocity and temperature during the AD process is crucial in enhancing the coating quality. In the present work, a two-way coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian model is developed for an AD system equipped with a converging-barrel nozzle to simulate the supersonic gas flow, particle in-flight behavior, as well as particle conditions upon impact on a flat substrate. The focus of the current study is to understand the effects of compressibility and rarefaction on particle velocity and temperature during the AD process. The effects of compressibility and rarefaction can be assessed using the Mach and Knudsen numbers. Therefore, different models for the drag coefficient and the heat transfer coefficient that take into account the Knudsen, Mach, and Reynolds number effects are implemented into the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The results show that compressibility and rarefaction have significant influence on the particle temperature and velocity. As the particle size reduces, the effects of compressibility and rarefaction become more important.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoatingsSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207