Skip to content
#small language model Open access

Firing Shrinkage Has Two Values Depending on the Denominator, and Volume Shrinkage Is Not Three Times the Linear ── linear shrinkage is 0.150868 on the green size and 0.177674 on the fired size, and a 100 mm fired part needs a 117.767361 mm mould ── the separator is whether shrinkage is measured against the green size or the fired size ── [Paper 754]

Sep 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

Ceramics shrink on firing, and the shrinkage is often quoted as a single "shrinkage" figure. What that figure is divided by, how volume and length differ, and how density scatter appears in size are counted. No new theorem or law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new theorem or law is claimed──that sintering raises density and shrinks the body, deriving length and volume ratios from mass conservation, expressing shrinkage on either the green or the fired size, and that volume strain equals three times linear strain only as a small-strain approximation are all known (Rahaman 2003, Kingery 1976). The sintering process is not treated──temperature history, sintering rate and grain growth are not treated; only initial and final densities are considered. Shrinkage is isotropic──equal shrinkage in all directions is assumed; anisotropic shrinkage from forming and sagging under weight are not treated. Values are representative──relative densities 0.60 and 0.98 and the +/-1 % scatter are set values. No tolerance is claimed──real product tolerances and mould machining accuracy are not treated. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 748 showed that most of the water taken out of wood changes neither its size nor its strength──its scope note did not distinguish species or direction and did not touch whether size change is measured in length or volume, or against which denominator. There the water removed and the size change were different numbers. Here the density change and the linear size change are different numbers, and the shrinkage figure itself has two values depending on the denominator. What is added is deriving one firing's linear shrinkage on both denominators, 0.150868 and 0.177674, deriving the volume-to-linear ratio 2.570156 and showing it leave 3 as strain grows, showing that green density scatter appears as roughly a third in size, and placing the separator on which size the ruler is set against. First, the same firing has two linear shrinkages──0.150868 on the green size, 0.177674 on the fired size (Section 2). Second, the mould is sized by the fired denominator──a 100 mm fired part needs a 117.767361 mm mould (Section 2). Third, and this is the core. Volume shrinkage is not three times the linear──volume shrinkage 0.387755 against linear shrinkage gives a ratio of 2.570156 (Section 3). Fourth, three holds only for small strains──2.997001 at linear shrinkage 0.001, 2.440000 at 0.200 (Section 3). Fifth, size difference appears as a third of the density scatter──a +/-1 % green density scatter gives a size difference of 0.006689, 0.334458 of the scatter (Section 4). Sixth, the separator is whether shrinkage is measured against the green size or the fired size──"15 % shrinkage" does not fix the mould until the denominator is named (Section 5). Firing shrinkage has two values depending on the denominator, and volume shrinkage is not three times the linear. Shrinking equally in all directions from relative density 0.60 to 0.98, linear shrinkage is 0.150868 on the green size and 0.177674 on the fired size, and a 100 mm fired part needs a 117.767361 mm mould──both are correct, and the number does not travel unless one says which. The ratio of volume shrinkage 0.387755 to linear shrinkage is 2.570156; at 0.001 it is 2.997001 and at 0.200 it is 2.440000, so three holds only for small strains──sintering shrinkage is large enough to break the approximation. A +/-1 % green density scatter gives a fired size difference of 0.006689 from the same mould, 0.334458 of the scatter. The separator is whether shrinkage is measured against the green size or the fired size──"15 % shrinkage" does not fix the mould until the denominator is named. Placed among the earlier papers──Paper 748 showed that water removed and size change are different numbers; this counts density and size as different numbers, with shrinkage having two values by denominator. To be honest──the sintering process, anisotropic shrinkage and real tolerances are not treated. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. Keywords: firing shrinkage, relative density, linear and volume shrinkage, denominator of shrinkage, density scatter, mould size. ----- 焼き物は焼くと縮む。その縮みを「収縮率」という一つの数で言うことが多い。その数が何を分母にしているか、体積と線でどう違うか、密度のむらが寸法にどう出るかを数える。新しい定理も法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい定理も法則も主張しない──焼結で密度が上がって縮むこと、質量保存から線と体積の比を出すこと、収縮率を生の寸法と焼き上がりの寸法のどちらでも表すこと、体積ひずみが線ひずみの三倍になるのが小さいひずみの近似であることは、いずれも既知である(ラーマン 2003、キンガリー 1976)。焼結の過程を扱わない──温度の履歴、焼結の速さ、粒の成長は扱わず、始めと終わりの密度だけを見る。収縮を等方と置く──三方向に同じだけ縮むと置く。成形の向きによる異方的な収縮や、自重による変形は扱わない。値は代表値である──相対密度 0.60 と 0.98、密度のむら +/-1 % は置いた値である。寸法公差を主張しない──実在の製品の公差や型の加工精度は扱わない。既刊との関係:論文748 は、木から抜く水の大半が寸法も強さも変えないことを示した──その射程注記は、樹種と方向を区別しないとし、寸法の変化を線で測るか体積で測るか、何を分母にするかには触れていなかった。そこでは抜いた水の量と寸法の変化が別の数だった。ここでは密度の変化と線の寸法の変化が別の数で、しかも収縮率そのものが分母の選び方で二つの値を持つ。加えたのは、同じ焼成の線収縮を二つの分母で出し 0.150868 と 0.177674 を並べたこと、体積と線の比 2.570156 を出し、ひずみとともに 3 から離れることを示したこと、生の密度のむらが寸法の差のおよそ三分の一として出ることを示したこと、分離子を「物差しをどちらの寸法に置くか」に置いたことである。 第一に、同じ焼成の線収縮が、二つの値を持つ──生の寸法を分母に 0.150868、焼き上がりを分母に 0.177674(第2節)。 第二に、型の寸法は焼き上がりの分母で決まる──焼き上がり 100 mm に要る型は 117.767361 mm(第2節)。 第三に、これが本稿の芯である。体積の収縮は線の三倍にならない──体積収縮 0.387755 と線収縮の比は 2.570156(第3節)。 第四に、三倍は小さいひずみでだけ成り立つ──線収縮 0.001 で 2.997001、0.200 で 2.440000(第3節)。 第五に、寸法の差は密度のむらの三分の一として出る──生の密度 +/-1 % のむらで寸法の差 0.006689、むらの 0.334458 倍(第4節)。 第六に、分離子は、収縮を測る物差しを生の寸法に置くか、焼き上がりの寸法に置くかである──「収縮率 15 %」は、分母を言うまで型の寸法が決まらない(第5節)。 焼き物の収縮率は分母で二つの値を持ち、体積の収縮は線の三倍にならない。生の相対密度 0.60 から 0.98 まで三方向に同じだけ縮むと、線収縮は生の寸法を分母に 0.150868、焼き上がりを分母に 0.177674 で、焼き上がり 100 mm には 117.767361 mm の型が要る──どちらも正しく、どちらかを書かなければ数は伝わらない。体積収縮 0.387755 と線収縮の比は 2.570156 で、線収縮 0.001 なら 2.997001、0.200 なら 2.440000 と、三倍は小さいひずみでだけ成り立つ──焼結の縮みは、その近似が崩れる大きさにある。生の密度が +/-1 % むらだと、同じ型から焼き上がる寸法に 0.006689 の差が出て、むらの 0.334458 倍になる。分離子は、収縮を測る物差しを生の寸法に置くか、焼き上がりの寸法に置くかである──「収縮率 15 %」は、分母を言うまで型の寸法が決まらない。既刊との位置──論文748 は抜いた水と寸法が別の数であることを示した。ここは密度と寸法が別の数で、収縮率が分母で二つになることを数えた。正直に言えば──焼結の過程も異方的な収縮も実在の公差も扱っていない。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。 キーワード:焼成収縮、相対密度、線収縮と体積収縮、収縮率の分母、密度のむら、型の寸法。

View source

Similar papers

#small language model Dataset Open access Oct 2026

Socratic guiding questions in synthetic arithmetic data: matched LoRA runs (revision v2)

Supporting data, adapters, predictions and code for the article *Low-Cost LoRA Fine-Tuning of Small Language Models for Multi-Step Arithmetic Reasoning* by Jake O'Grady, Asena Isik Gürhan, Chee Fong Ting and Effirul Ramlan (University of Galway). We generated 20,000 GSM8K-derived arithmetic problems with step-by-step s...

O'Grady, Jake, Gürhan, Asena Isik, Chee, Fong Ting et al. · 465 citations
#computer vision Open access Jun 2016

Software Development in Startup Companies: The Greenfield Startup Model

The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.

Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 178 citations · ⚡14
#computer vision Open access Oct 2016

Software Startups - A Research Agenda

Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.

M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 157 citations · ⚡17
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#computer vision Review Open access May 2015

A survey study on major technical barriers affecting the decision to adopt cloud services

The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.

Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al. · 111 citations · ⚡8
#computer vision Open access Feb 2018

Lean Internal Startups for Software Product Innovation in Large Companies: Enablers and Inhibitors

This study investigates how Lean internal startup facilitates software product innovation in large companies and identifies its enablers and inhibitors, and shows the potential of the method-in-action framework to investigate the Lean startup approach in non-startup context.

Henry Edison, Nina M. Smørsgård, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 78 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.