Incompressible Criterion and Pressure Drop for Gaseous Slip Flow in Circular and Noncircular Microchannels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slip flow in various noncircular microchannels has been further examined, and a simple model for a normalized Poiseuille number is proposed. As for slip flow, no solutions or graphical and tabulated data exist for most geometries; the developed simple model fills this void and can be used to predict the Poiseuille number, mass flow rate, tangential momentum accommodation coefficient, pressure distribution, and pressure drop of slip flow in noncircular microchannels by the research community for the practical engineering design of microchannels. The incompressible flow criterion for gas flow in microchannels is given. A Mach number less than 0.3 is not sufficient to ensure that the flow is incompressible. Compressibility depends on the product of two dimensionless parameters: L/L(DRe)(DRe) and Ma (Arkilic et al., 1997, “Gaseous Slip Flow in Long Microchannels,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., 6(2), pp. 167–178). Some flows where Ma < 0.3 are low speed compressible flows. A fresh general pressure drop model for isothermal low Mach number compressible flow in microchannels is proposed. If the pressure drop is less than 10% of the outlet pressure, the flow can be considered as incompressible for practical engineering applications. This paper improves and extends previous studies on slip flow in noncircular microchannels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".