Transient Flow in a Rapidly Filling Horizontal Pipe Containing Trapped Air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressure within a trapped air pocket in a rapidly filling horizontal pipe is investigated both experimentally and analytically. The downstream end of the pipe is either sealed to form a dead end or outfitted with an orifice to study the effects of air leakage on the pressure. Three types of pressure oscillation patterns are observed, depending on the size of the orifice. When no air is released or orifice sizes are small, the cushioning effects of the air pocket prevents the water column from impacting on the pipe end and from generating high water hammer pressures. However, the maximum pressure experienced may still be several times the upstream driving pressure. When the orifice size is very large, the air cushioning effect vanishes and the water hammer pressure is dominant. For intermediate orifice sizes, the pressure oscillation pattern consists of both long-period oscillations (while the air pocket persists) followed by short-period pressure oscillations (once water hammer pressures dominate). Air leakage is observed to play a significant role in increasing the magnitude of the observed pressures during rapid filling, resulting in peak pressures up to 15 times the upstream head. An analytical model, capable of calculating the air pocket pressure and the peak pressure when the water column slams into the end of the pipe, is developed and results are compared with those of experiments. The model was successful in determining the amplitude of the peak pressure for the entire orifice range and was able to simulate the pressure oscillation pattern for the case of a negligible water hammer impact effect. Although the model was unable to simulate the pressure oscillation pattern for substantial air release, it was able to predict the type of pressure oscillation behavior and the peak pressure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".