Asymptotic Generalizations of the Lockhart–Martinelli Method for Two Phase Flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lockhart–Martinelli (1949, “Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two Phase Flow, Two Component Flow in Pipes,” Chem. Eng. Prog., 45, pp. 39–48) method for predicting two phase flow pressure drop is examined from the point of view of asymptotic modeling. Comparisons are made with the Lockhart–Martinelli method, the Chisholm (1967, “A Theoretical Basis for the Lockhart-Martinelli Correlation for Two Phase Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10, pp. 1767–1778) method, and the Turner–Wallis (1969, One Dimensional Two Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York) method. An alternative approach for predicting two phase flow pressure drop is developed using superposition of three pressure gradients: single phase liquid, single phase gas, and interfacial pressure drop. This new approach allows for the interfacial pressure drop to be easily modeled for each type of flow regime such as bubbly, mist, churn, plug, stratified, and annular, or based on the classical laminar-laminar, turbulent-turbulent, laminar-turbulent, and turbulent-laminar flow regimes proposed by Lockhart and Martinelli.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".