A Method for Pump Manifold Performance Calculations in Hydraulic Air Compressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analytical methods are described that were developed to undertake the pump manifold calculations for hydraulic air compressors (HACs) where multiple pumps are installed in parallel configurations. The procedures are fast and exact and were developed for design optimization and control tasks which, although described in the specific context of HACs, are also applicable to more general pumping systems. The proposed method uses a recursive/iterative procedure to establish the pump curve equivalent to the pump combination so that the design performance of the system can be assessed for any value of externally attached hydraulic resistance. The technique is verified against a numerical method applied to the same problem, but where the external hydraulic resistance must be completely specified for a solution. Losses at convergent and divergent wyes, which are required to create the parallel pump manifold arrangements, are found to be significant factors in establishing the overall energy efficiency of the pumping system. With efficient pump manifold arrangements designed, a so-called binary pumping scheme is explained, where individual pumps in the manifold can be activated (1) or deactivated (0) so that the pumping system flow can be reduced with good turn-down ratios while ensuring that the best efficiency point (BEP) efficiency of the system is maintained (exemplified with 4:1 or 25%).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".