Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@giacaglia
Created May 19, 2026 03:10
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save giacaglia/4dd3584fb9cbddae6cf831bc70bf6460 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save giacaglia/4dd3584fb9cbddae6cf831bc70bf6460 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Case 3.8 Outputs.xlsx — proposed Tier 2 discharge correction (1-cell copy-paste error + 5 cascade fixes)

Outputs.xlsx — Corrections note

Date applied: 2026-05-18 Reviewer: Claude Opus 4.7 (machine), pending Korbut human confirmation Status: PROPOSED — not certified. Please verify against your working calculation file before treating Outputs_corrected.xlsx as the new reference.

Suspected error

The Tier 2 discharge row in the original Outputs.xlsx is character- identical to the Tier 2 suction row (50.49 m total equivalent length, 0.094 bar section ΔP). But the input fitting sets in Test Case_v1.xlsx differ materially between the two lines:

Fitting Suction count Discharge count
Nozzle (vessel outlet) 1 0
Elbow 90° R=1.5D 1 0
Globe valve (straight pattern) L/D = 340 1 0
Y-strainer L/D ≈ 250 1 0
Contraction d/D = ½, K = 0.25 0 1
Check valve (swing) L/D = 100 0 1
Gate valve full-bore L/D = 8 0 1
Nozzle (vessel inlet) 0 1

Physically, the discharge ΔP must be roughly a third of the suction ΔP (the globe valve alone dominates the suction). Equal values can only arise from a copy-paste / stale-link error in the certified workbook.

Two independent runs (Claude Opus standalone + the TIROS skill chain ls-author-line + ps-author-pump) produced the same physically- correct discharge value of 0.039 bar vs the reference's 0.094 bar.

Corrected values (9 cells)

Tier 2 — Discharge line

cell original corrected
Total equivalent length — fittings 27.39 m 10.26 m
Total equivalent length — pipe 23.1 m 11.0 m
Total section length 50.49 m 21.26 m
Frictional pressure loss of section 0.094 bar 0.0392 bar

Tier 3 — Pump (5 cascade-corrected values)

The discharge friction feeds directly into pump discharge pressure → pump ΔP → TDH → hydraulic power → shut-off ΔP. With the corrected discharge friction substituted (and Korbut's suction pressure and elevation convention preserved):

cell original corrected change
Discharge pressure 2.095 bara 2.044 bara −0.051
Pump differential pressure 1.002 bar 0.951 bar −0.051
Pump differential head (TDH) 10.26 m 9.73 m −0.53
Hydraulic power (100% η) 0.343 kW 0.326 kW −0.017
Shut-off differential pressure 1.203 bar 1.141 bar −0.062

Cells INTENTIONALLY left unchanged

  • All Tier 1 values (line sizing) — both lines correctly select 2½" STD; suction = discharge for these as expected (same mass flow, same fluid).
  • All Tier 2 suction values — match within tolerance (50.49 vs 50.27 m total; 0.094 vs 0.093 bar). Cosmetic split between "fittings" and "pipe" columns differs but totals match.
  • Tier 3 suction pressure (1.093 bara) — preserved per Korbut's elevation convention. The standalone Opus run computed 1.123 bara using a 1.7 m static head (liquid surface = 2.3 m above grade); Korbut's value implies ~1.4 m static head. This is a definition question (where in the source vessel does the "2 m elevation" refer to?), not a math error. Worth a separate conversation.
  • Liquid head (10.23 m/bar) — depends only on density, unchanged.
  • NPSHa (11.22 m) — depends only on suction side, unchanged.
  • Rated volumetric flow (12.33 m³/h) — input-derived, unchanged.

Recompute basis

P_discharge = P_dest + ΔP_static_discharge + ΔP_friction_discharge + ΔP_equipment + ΔP_CV
            = 1.10 + 0.195 + 0.0392 + 0.01 + 0.70
            = 2.044 bara

Pump ΔP     = P_discharge − P_suction
            = 2.044 − 1.093
            = 0.951 bar

TDH         = ΔP_pump × liquid_head
            = 0.951 × 10.23
            = 9.73 m

Hydraulic power = ΔP_pump × Q_rated
                = 95100 Pa × (12.33/3600) m³/s
                = 0.326 kW

Shut-off ΔP = 1.20 × ΔP_rated (HI 1.3 typical for centrifugal absent vendor curve)
            = 1.20 × 0.951
            = 1.141 bar

If this correction is wrong

If you (Korbut) intended the discharge values to equal the suction values for some reason not visible in the case spec (e.g., a deliberate convention that "both sides use the worst-case section" for a first-pass estimate), let me know and I'll discard Outputs_corrected.xlsx. Otherwise this should be the working reference until you re-certify.

Files

  • Outputs.xlsx — your original certified workbook, UNCHANGED
  • Outputs_corrected.xlsx — proposed corrected version (this note's diff)
  • Test Case_v1.xlsx — the case inputs (unchanged)
  • Test Case_v1_filled.xlsx — standalone Opus's filled answer set
  • grading_report.md — per-cell grading of the standalone run vs original Outputs
  • corrections_note.md — this file
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment