Dispensing nozzle: virtual bench

This virtual bench completes the pressure/flow, dimensional sensitivity and dosing run-through using declared inputs. No instrument data were collected. Every generated observation is marked synthetic.

Equations and units

The slow-taper resistance is R = (8 mu / pi) integral dz / r(z)^4, in Pa s/mm3 when geometry is in mm. A linear radius segment integrates to L (r0^-3 - r1^-3) / [3 (r1-r0)]. Three new FEM solutions check this reduction at nominal and tolerance corners. The maximum observed FEM/reduced ratio receives a further 0.5% allowance; it is a local empirical bound, not a general error theorem.

Upstream straight-tube pressure is Q Rfeed. The bounded meniscus head is 2 gamma / rout with radius in metres. This is a static spherical-meniscus sensitivity with contact-angle cosine bounded by 1; it does not simulate droplets. The tolerance envelope uses independent corner/nominal radii, land length, viscosity and flow: 243 cases. It retains the original 6500 Pa pressure budget. The output derives a lower permitted flow instead of silently moving the budget.

For dosing, C dP/dt = (Ps-P)/Rfeed - (P-Pcap)/Rnozzle while open. The inlet is isolated at closure and C dP/dt = -(P-Pcap)/Rnozzle afterward. C = Vliquid/Kbulk + Vair/Pabsolute. Exact exponentials give pulse volume, tail and remaining stored liquid. The linear gas-compliance approximation is used only for the few-kPa pressure swing; it models a compressible pocket, not moving bubbles. Pressure is initially Pcap. The inlet valve is assumed instantaneous. Tail liquid leaves the nozzle; droplet detachment is not computed.

The synthetic bench imposes a common 22 Pa offset and 12 Pa independent normal noise on pressure, plus 0.2 mg balance noise over 20 s at the declared 1 mg/mm3 density. Fitting an intercept prevents the imposed zero offset from being mistaken for resistance. A seeded 25% obstruction challenge tests detection. This verifies the inference workflow against known generated truth; it is not independent physical validation of the flow solver.

Selected operating decision

The existing wide-inlet CAD is retained. The combined system envelope is limited to 26.4 mm3/s at 0.5 to 1.0 Pa s with the declared tolerances, feed tube and meniscus bound. Its worst computed pressure is 6478.60 Pa. The 30 mm3/s endpoint is rejected for this envelope. No dimensions were changed and no new CAD revision is implied.

For the separate 100 mm3 pulse example, use the nominal 0.75 Pa s de-aired condition. A change of viscosity or gas compliance requires a new regulator/pulse calculation; the failed fixed-setting cases are not approved operating points.

Acceptance results

requirementoutcomeevidence
6500 Pa at 30 mm3/s, tolerance + supply + meniscusFAILWorst 7323.08 Pa; original nominal-only maximum was 6142.62 Pa.
Computed conservative operating rangePASSUp to 26.4 mm3/s across this bounded input set; maximum 6478.60 Pa.
Nominal fixed pulse 100 +/- 1 mm3PASSDe-aired pulse 99.999963 mm3.
Shutoff after large air pocketFAIL7.540 mm3 tail in 2 s exceeds 1 mm3.
Unchanged setting after viscosity increaseFAIL75.000 mm3 during pulse.

FEM comparison at tolerance corners

caseinlet radius mmoutlet radius mmoutlet land mmfem pressure Pareduced pressure Parelative error
minimum_resistance1.260.511.89999999999999862824.51351193187072818.22353100404640.002226925416094816
nominal1.250.52.03071.3093796817163064.57553909760.0021924982968709594
maximum_resistance1.240.492.10000000000000143345.2787577531223338.0499640442330.002160894272901892

Dosing and shutoff

caseair volume mm3viscosity factorcompliance mm3 Pasteady flow mm3 spulse mm3tail mm3stored at close mm3remaining mm3inlet volume mm3tau on stau off sclosure pressure Pabalance residual mm3pulse error mm3pulse passtail pass
deaired012.5e-0720.099.999962782004360.0007678273449204290.0007678273449204290.0100.000730609349291.8608997818250052e-063.8391367246021454e-053351.3093796817169.654169824679926e-15-3.7217995640048684e-05TrueTrue
small_air_pocket2510.000246980816679003220.099.963231476170170.75855449886767290.75855449886767299.524123901827374e-24100.721785975037830.00183842619149167430.0379277249433836453351.309379681716-5.551115132649906e-15-0.036768523829834976TrueTrue
large_air_pocket25010.002467558166790031820.099.63264972366247.53996343710120257.5786345425724450.038671105471242355107.211284266234840.0183675138168803220.37893172712862233351.309379681716-4.85722573273506e-17-0.36735027633760353TrueFalse
high_viscosity_same_setting01.33333333333333332.5e-0715.00000000000000274.999962782004370.00076782734492042910.00076782734492042910.075.00073060934932.481199709100007e-065.118848966136193e-053351.30937968171669.654061404462677e-15-25.000037217995626FalseTrue

Verification

iddescriptionexpectedobservedpassedmethod
resistance_pipeConstant-radius reductionmatches 8 mu L/(pi r^4) to 1e-1238.19718634205488TrueIndependent closed-form benchmark
fem_minimum_resistanceReduced resistance checked at minimum_resistancerelative pressure error < 0.010.002226925416094816TrueNew axisymmetric P2/P1 Stokes solve at 120x24 mesh
fem_nominalReduced resistance checked at nominalrelative pressure error < 0.010.0021924982968709594TrueNew axisymmetric P2/P1 Stokes solve at 120x24 mesh
fem_maximum_resistanceReduced resistance checked at maximum_resistancerelative pressure error < 0.010.002160894272901892TrueNew axisymmetric P2/P1 Stokes solve at 120x24 mesh
adverse_pressure_detectedUpper range including tolerances, feed and meniscusat least one 30 mm3/s case exceeds unchanged 6500 Pa budget7323.080924347813TrueFull factorial reduced-order tolerance study; checked FEM correction
guardbandConservative flow bound from the same modelpressure <= 6500 Pa for every enumerated case6478.59692771179TrueWorst permissible flow rounded down to 0.1 mm3/s; original target retained
creeping_regimeFlow regime over tolerance envelopemax Re < 0.10.07795344151439773TrueOutlet diameter and mean velocity
synthetic_fitRecover a declared resistance despite pressure offset/noiserelative slope error < 1% in both cases0.0031243688050183183TrueLeast squares with intercept on 3 flows x 5 repeats; seed recorded
obstructionDetect synthetic added restrictionfitted resistance increase > 20%0.24611992667555804True25% resistance challenge compared with clean run
volume_balanceCompliant dosing volume balanceabsolute residual < 1e-10 mm39.654169824679926e-15TrueClosed-form inlet = pulse + tail + stored remainder
zero_complianceZero-compliance limiting case100 mm3 delivered during pulse and zero tail100.0TrueAnalytical steady resistance network
adverse_airLarge trapped air affects shutoff250 mm3 air case exceeds 1 mm3 tail criterion7.5399634371012025TrueLinear isothermal gas-compliance sensitivity; no bubble transport claim
adverse_viscosityFixed pulse is not a volume controller1 Pa s case misses 100 +/- 1 mm3 target74.99996278200437TrueSame regulator setting and pulse length; changed viscosity
input_rejectionInvalid resistance inputs3 invalid cases rejected3TrueZero bore, duplicate station and nonfinite viscosity
Synthetic pressure observations and calculated shutoff tails

Model boundary

The study does not select a commercial pump, material, seal or thread. Surface finish, cleaning chemistry, wear and non-Newtonian behavior cannot be inferred from these declared properties. Physical qualification remains a different evidence category. The completed deliverable is the reproducible computational assessment and its operating envelope.

Method references: Ansys fully developed laminar-flow verification; DOLFINx Taylor-Hood formulation. The resistance-network and compliance equations above are derived directly from flow and volume balances.

Machine-readable results | Inputs | Run instructions