Search results

Kohal, Performance of Zirconia for Dental Healthcare, Materials. 3(2) (2010) 863-896

Factor analysis results of the image words Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings 1 2 3 Total % of Variance Cumulative % young - aging .834 .357 -.369 6.821 52.466 52.466 high-speed - slow .691 -.654 -.155 modern - traditional .451 .150 -.476 dynamic - static .921 -.260 -.246 avant-garde – conservative .988 .088 -.031 creative - imitative .971 .191 .074 characteristic - common .944 .271 .137 male - female -.137 -.886 .355 3.661 28.165 80.632 masculine – feminine -.119 -.875 .370 friendliness - indifferent .245 .923 -.126 lively – rigid .411 .865 -.221 rounded – sharp .201 .071 .896 1.271 9.773 90.405 geometric - unordered .033 -.196 .920 In order to be more careful selecting the representative image words, the selected 13 pairs of image words were operated by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, with the method of Ward specifically, eventually selected the words which are closest to the gravity point of each group canter as the representative ones.

Sci. (2005), 896 – 902

Fig.1 shows the simulation result when a high-speed train hydraulic yaw damper is subjected to a sinusoidal excitation of ±20 mm amplitude and 1 Hz frequency, the damper operates in a normal fluid temperature of 35 ° C and a normal entrapped air ratio of 0.05%. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 892 894 896 898 900 Time (s) Density (kg/m3) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.028 0.03 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.04 Time (s) Viscosity (Pa.s) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 x 108 Time (s) Modulus (Pa) Dynamic profile Mean value Assumed constant value a b c 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 2 4 6 x 10-4 Time (s) Pressure chamber volume(m3) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 x 107 Time (s) Fluid stiffness (N/m) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 x 106 Time (s) Damper stiffness (N/m) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 x 10-5 Time (s) Flow loss (m3/s) Dynamic profile Mean value d e f g Fig.1 Dynamic fluid properties in the pressure chamber when hydraulic

Thickness [mm] TS [MPa] YTS [MPa] A80 [%] r [-] IE [mm] Inconel 625 0,45 983 625 40,2 1,09 12,1 Inconel 718 0,9 896 494 26,7 0,93 10,8 a) b) c) Fig. 1.

Instrument Journal, 2008,4 (29) :892-896

Res. 896 (2014) 141-144

From Figure 3, it can see that the mixed water COD load is 896.3mg/L, or 1120.4 mg / L, or1400.5 mg/L, or1750.6 mg / L, the COD removal rate could reach over 60% .Illuminate that the wastewater can be granular sludge biochemical treated; when mixed water COD load is 2188.2mg / L, the COD removal rate Fig. 2 The relationship between the COD load and Fig.3 The relationship between the mixed COD removal rate wastewater concentration and COD removal rate 1.

Hsieh, Six Sigma approach to improve surface precision of optical lenses in the injection-molding process, Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:885–896

Friedrich: Journal of Macromolecular Science - Part B: Physics Vol 46 No 1 (2007), p. 183 Figure 7 Comparison of tensile modulus of injection moulded PE and MFC 642 896 1324 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Pure LMDPE LMDPE/PET 70/30 wt/% undrawn blend PE/PET 70/30 wt/% MFC Modulus (MPa) Figure 6 Comparison of ultimate tensile strength of injection moulded PE and MFC samples. 18.52 20.9 34.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Pure LMDPE LMDPE/PET 70/30 wt/% undrawn blend PE/PET 70/30 wt/% MFC Tensile Stress (MPa)