MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Empirical Discharge Coefficient Model for Orifice Flow

2002· article· en· W2166868970 on OpenAlexafffund
Duqiang Wu, Richard Burton, Greg Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fluid Power · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNanjing University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaZhejiang University of TechnologyUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFlow coefficientBody orificeDischarge coefficientBernoulli's principlePressure dropOrifice plateMechanicsReynolds numberBandwidth throttlingPressure coefficientFlow (mathematics)Flow conditioningMathematicsControl theory (sociology)ThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineeringTurbulenceMechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In fluid power systems, flow control is mainly achieved by throttling the flow across valve orifices. Lumped parameter models are generally used to model the flow in these systems. The basic orifice flow equation, derived from Bernoulli's equation of flow, is proportional to the orifice sectional area and the square root of the pressure drop and is used to model the orifice coefficient of proportionality. The discharge coefficient, Cd, is often modeled as being constant in value, independent of Reynolds number.However, for very small orifice openings, Cd varies significantly and can result in substantial error if assumed constant. In this situation, modelers usually revert to graphs or look—up tables to determine Cd. This paper provides a closed form model for Cd as a function of the Reynolds number which can be applied to different types of orifices. Based on this model, a technique to evaluate flow given an orifice area and pressure drop without having to use iteration is introduced.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations71
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Fluid PowerSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207