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 OpenAlexaff
Bruce Smith, Brian V. Luloff

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207