Multi objective optimization of multi-hole orifices using FSI analysis and NSGA II algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-hole orifices have better performance than single-hole orifices. In this paper, multi-objective optimization of multi-hole orifices is performed using a Fluid-Solid Interaction (FSI) analysis and multi-objective genetic algorithm (NSGA II). In all numerical analysis, the governing equations of the solid and the governing equations of the fluid are carried out for orifice and fluid around orifice respectively. All calculations are made for a 16-hole orifice with circular holes. The design variable in the optimization process is the distance between the holes of the orifice and thus the amount of shrinkage or expansion of the orifice geometry. The objective functions are the pressure drop created on the sides of the orifice, the deformation and tension created in the orifice structure, which should be maximized, minimized and minimized respectively. In the results section, the Pareto front are presented which represent useful information for designing the multi-hole orifices geometry, and five orifices are also introduced as final design options that have better performance. The results of the sensitivity analysis of the various parameters are also presented and discussed in detail in the multi-hole orifices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it