MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transient Flow in a Rapidly Filling Horizontal Pipe Containing Trapped Air

2002· article· en· W2069342886 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 Hydraulic Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody orificeWater hammerMechanicsCushioningMaterials scienceOscillation (cell signaling)Orifice platePressure dropAirflowLeakage (economics)ThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.163 · 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