Analysis of Fluid Flow in Porous Media Using the Lattice Boltzmann Method: Inertial Flow Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we use the lattice Boltzmann method to study inertial flow in three-dimensional random fibrous porous materials. In order to validate the methodology, inertial flow in two-dimensional hexagonal arrangements of circular cylinders is simulated, and the results are compared against those previously reported in the literature. The three-dimensional fibrous porous materials are then constructed by randomly placing straight cylindrical fibers inside the computational domain. Inertial effects are studied systematically for a wide range of pore Reynolds numbers in materials with porosities between 0.60 and 0.95. A previously proposed semi-empirical relation is modified to represent the inertial effects in three-dimensional fibrous materials. Three distinct regimes of constant, quadratic, and linear relations between the inverse of the permeability and pore Reynolds number are observed for both two- and three-dimensional simulations. The critical Reynolds number, beyond which the inertial effects are strong and this relation is linear, is shown to be smaller in three-dimensional simulations, when compared to the critical Reynolds number in two-dimensional simulations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".