Numerical Analysis of Control Valve with Perforated Cage under Different Inlet Pressure Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is performed to confirm the flow characteristics under varying inlet pressures in a control valve using a single-stage resistance perforated cage via experiments and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation and to evaluate the flow state based on CFD visualization results.The target control valve is a 2-inch perforated cage valve, and the hole shape is cylindrical with a diameter of 2.5 mm.The flow coefficient (Cv) is calculated based on three differential pressures, and the liquid pressure recovery factor (FL) is calculated using the maximum differential pressure.We calculate and compare the Cv and FL, which are flow characteristics, from the experimental and CFD results to confirm the validity of the CFD analysis model.Subsequently, the pressure distribution, velocity distribution, void fraction, and erosion are visualized based on the CFD analysis results.The results show that a region with a high void fraction is generated owing to cavitation caused by flow separation at the inlet of the perforation, and that an increase in the inlet pressure results in a region with a high void fraction expanding to the outlet of the perforation.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".