English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study aimed to evaluate three methodologies for orifice-plate water-flow estimation by quantifying errors in the flow determinations to propose an appropriate measurement range for each evaluated condition. Two orifice-plate models (nominal diameters of 100 and 150 mm) with 50% restriction in the flow section were evaluated. In the theoretical equations, the discharge coefficient was obtained using the Reader-Harris/Gallagher equation (Method 1) and approximated from experimental data using the angular coefficient of a zero-intercept straight line (Method 2). The recommended measurement ranges for errors that were lower than 5% for the 100 and 150 mm plates were 30 to 65 m3 h-1 and 70 to 130 m3 h-1 using the theoretical equation and 20 to 65 m3 h-1 and 40 to 130 m3 h-1 using the empirical equation, respectively. The Reader-Harris/Gallagher equation (Method 1) adequately estimated the discharge coefficient of the orifice plates; however, the use of empirical equations (Method 3) demonstrated smaller measurement errors and greater rangeability of the evaluated flow meters.

Performance of models to determine flow rate using orifice plates