Roughness correction factor

In the Wenzel model, the apparent contact angle 0w is obtained by correcting the Young s contact angle 0 with a roughness correction factor r... 

The film thicknesses were corrected using the thermal correction factor of Wilson (Ref. 7). Roughness correction factors as calculated by Patir and Cheng, Ref. 8 were not considered. For the capacitance calculations, each of the loaded rolling element/raceway contacts was divided into five zones the inlet zone, the EHD zone, the outlet zone and... 

With the exception of two correlations in Table 12.2, smooth surfaces characterized were the solid source materials and not rough sediment surfaces. Boudreaux and Jorgensen (2001) also considered this aspect. Mass transfer roughness correction factors, To (dimensionless) were included in their review the correlating equations were of the form ... 

The correction factor (NTU) p/NTU as a function of Pe rather than Pe is shown in Figure 19b. The correction factors given in Figures 19a and 19b can roughly be estimated as... 

The concentration of dissolved ionic substances can be roughly estimated by multiplying the specific conductance by an empirical factor of 0.55—0.9, depending on temperature and soluble components. Since specific conductance is temperature dependent, all samples should be measured at the same temperature. Alternatively, an appropriate temperature-correction factor obtained by comparisons with known concentrations of potassium chloride may be used. Instmments are available that automatically correct conductance measurements for different temperatures. 

For Figure 1, assuming one shell pass and two or more tube passes, the correction factor is roughly 0.7. This... 

The viscosity correction factor is neglected in this rough calculation. 

Both roughness and heterogeneity may be present in real surfaces. In such a case, the correction factors defined by Equations (45) and (46) are both present. Although such modifications adapt Young s equation to nonideal surfaces, they introduce additional terms that are difficult to evaluate independently. Therefore the validity of Equation (44) continues to be questioned. 

The MPC values for water and for a 168-hour week can be applied to foods if appropriate care is taken—for example, the MPC values assume an average daily intake of 2200 grams of water for a standard man. If 2200 grams of radioactive food are consumed every day for 50 years, the referenced MPC values for water are applicable. This situation is obviously not the case, and correction factors that account for the intake of various foods are needed. Intake estimates are obtainable from data such as shown in Table VI (15). The correction factor is roughly the ratio of 2200 grams to the grams of daily intake of the irradiated or radioactive food. 

Nr = number of rows of tubes across which shell fluid flows Ba = correction factor to account for friction due to reversal in direction of flow, recrossing of tubes, and variation in cross section when the flow is across unbaffled tubes, B0 can be taken as 1.0 as a rough... 

For the numerical calculation we usually divided the cell surface (cylinder + end windows) into 14 elements of roughly equal area. Finer surface division yielded essentially the same results. The Na2 density was calculated for a grid of volume points Rj in cylindrical cells with L/d =0.48, 0.90, 1.91, 3.14 and 18.7. The temperature distribution Tj across the cylinder surface was taken from experiment (typically AT = 70 - 80K between the end windows). The calculations were done for P2 = 1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.25 and 0.00. In the experiment we measure the density of Na2 in the level v = 4, J = 39 (fluorescence excited by the 465.8 nm argon laser line) instead of the total Na2 density (2.)- In order to calculate [Na2 ]4 39 we have multiplied qj, taken from eq. (1), by the correction factor (6.)... 

This expression gives only a rough estimate. It neglects the electronic energy loss, the form of the atomic interaction and replacement collisions. Therefore, in reality, the above formula will give a considerable overestimation of the number of displacements. It is possible to take some of the neglected quantities into account by a correction factor. 

---