Reduced-scale experimental bench design of high-pressure blowing system of submersible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This paper proposes an experimental bench for manufacturing submersible high-pressure blowing systems (HPBS).MethodsBased on the isentropic blowing model of Laval spray and Bernoulli equations, the mathematical modeling of high-pressure air blowing-off and discharging is accomplished. Based on similarity criterion, a HPBS reduced-scale experimental bench of the Strouhal and the Euler similarity is designed, including the pressure vessel prototype selection and parameter calculation of ballast water tanks and seawater tanks. Under different initial conditions including back-pressures at operating depth of 300, 200 and 100 m, flow areas with sea valve opening degree of 100%, 75% and 50%, and blowing-off pressures of 25, 20 and 15 MPa, the performance of the experimental bench is evaluated. Results The results show that, under the above conditions, the maximal pressure of the compressed air in the ballast water tank is lower than the vessel regulation pressure, and the expansion volume of the compressed air in the ballast is beyond the vessels' regulation cubage.ConclusionsThis proves that the experimental bench can satisfy the performance requirements of submersible HPBS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".