Implementation of Two-Fluid Model for Dilute Gas-Solid Flow in Pipes With Rough Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical study was carried out to investigate the performance of a two-layer model for predicting turbulent gas-particle flows in rough pipes. An Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid formulation was used to model both the gas and solid phases for turbulent gas-particle flow in a vertical tube. The stresses developed in the particle phase were calculated using the kinetic theory of granular flows while the gas-phase stresses were described using an eddy viscosity model. The two-fluid model typically uses a two-equation k-ɛ model to describe the gas phase turbulence, which includes the suppression and enhancement effects due to the presence of particles. For comparison, a two-layer model was also implemented since it has the capability to include surface roughness. The current study examines the predictions of the two-layer model for both clear gas and gas-solid flows in comparison to the results of a conventional low Reynolds number model. The paper specifically documents the effects of surface roughness on the turbulence kinetic energy and granular temperature for gas-particle flow in both smooth and rough pipes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".