MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391660622 · doi:10.21272/jes.2024.11(1).f1

Optimization of Cold Spray Nozzles Based on the Response Surface Methodology

2024· article· en· W4391660622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kun Tan, Wenjie Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsNozzleSpray nozzleResponse surface methodologySpray characteristicsGas dynamic cold sprayMaterials scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spraying technical parameters are important factors that affect spraying efficiency. Most studies on spraying technical parameters use single-factor methods to study the speed of spray particles, and few scholars have studied the joint influence of multiple factors. This article uses gas temperature, particle size, and gas pressure as independent variables, and the independent variables interact. The design-expert method was used to establish a linear regression equation model of the velocity of sprayed Al and Cu particles at the Laval exit and the velocity before deposition with the substrate, and the response surface analysis method was used to predict the optimal spraying parameters of Al and Cu particles. The study found the contribution rate of three factors to particle velocity: the prediction of particle velocity at the exit of the Laval nozzle and before deposition with the substrate was realized; the error between the predicted value of particle velocity and the actual value obtained by simulation is less than 1.6 %, indicating that the speed linear regression equation established is effective and reliable in predicting the simulation results; the optimal spraying parameters and particle speeds of Al and Cu particles were obtained through response surface analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering SciencesSame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207