Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(17)
The errors generated by the one dimensional 46-CPWTR model are within 1% for practical insulation thickness (t/R2 < 0.5).
Accuracies of the predictive model are within ±2.5%and±13%3% error bound for compressive and tensile stress regimes, respectively.
Fatigue lives predicted based on the new model are within a factor-2 scatter band for all test conditions.
In the rare situations of thicker insulation (0.5 ≦ t/R2 ≦ 2), most of the errors returned by the one dimensional 55-CPWTR model are within 2%.
Compared with experimental data, it shows that the errors for the simulation results based on the new model are within ±15% under different operating parameters.
The errors generated by the one-dimensional 64-CPWTR model are within 1% for practical sizes and practical insulated thickness in air conditioning and refrigeration systems.
Similar(43)
The predicted drag coefficients for the generic SUV model was within 5% of the measured values.
The relative errors produced during the validation of the model were within ±10%.
Cutting forces calculated by the mathematical casing cutting model were within 7% of actual cutting forces.
The results obtained using the model was within the acceptable accuracy when compared to the experimental data.
The inconsistency value of the AHP model was within acceptable limit (CR = 0.01 < 0.1) (Table 6).
More suggestions(2)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com