MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411302950 · doi:10.1177/1045389x251344476

Experimental study of centrifugal pumping of magnetorheological fluid

2025· article· en· W4411302950 on OpenAlexafffund
Tim Dumais, Jean‐Sébastien Plante, David Rancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueTheratechnologies (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au Québec
KeywordsMagnetorheological fluidImpellerClutchCentrifugal pumpRotational speedShroudMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringActuatorCentrifugal forceTorqueMechanicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the potential of using a centrifugal pump to handle magnetorheological fluid with the ultimate goal of integrating such a pump directly into a magnetorheological clutch to increase MR actuator life and stabilize performance over time. A centrifugal pump design is proposed, and two prototype sizes are constructed. Experimental characterization of the pumps prototypes reveals that, even with a magnetorheological fluid containing 40% V/V of ferromagnetic microparticles, the standard scaling laws for centrifugal pumps provide accurate predictions of performance with changes in rotation speed. However, the results showed that these laws do not fully account for geometric effects when scaling the pump size due to differences in impeller performance. The results also show that a centrifugal pump of 46 mm in diameter can effectively circulate magnetorheological fluid at a flow rate of 90 mL/min per shear interface in a commercial MR clutch.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and StructuresSame topicVibration Control and Rheological FluidsFrench-language works237,207