MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059984123 · doi:10.1115/1.1286031

The Effect of Seat Geometry on Gate Valve Noise

2000· article· en· W2059984123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingValve seatNoise (video)Gate valveGlobe valveAcousticsVortex sheddingButterfly valveEngineeringStructural engineeringMarine engineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceMechanicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gate valves often act as a source of tonal noise in piping systems. Occasionally, this can lead to excessive environmental noise levels. This paper presents the results of a model testing program that was conducted to determine the most cost-effective way to eliminate the noise source in one such valve. Over 300 tests were conducted on 25 different valve configurations. Testing of the original valve configuration indicated that the noise was caused by vortex shedding over the valve seat cavity coupled with an acoustic resonance across the throat of the valve. Numerous modifications to the valve seats, seat cavity, and disk were tested to determine how the vortex shedding could best be controlled. The effect of these modifications on the unsteady pressures in the valve and adjacent piping are presented and discussed. For the valve under consideration, it was concluded that the noise could best be eliminated by chamfering the upstream and downstream valve seats. Recommendations for avoiding noise problems in other valve installations are presented. [S0094-9930(00)00503-5]

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · 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