Modelling criteria for flow simulation in gas stirred ladles: experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criteria for modelling isothermal flows encountered in typical gas stirred ladles have been investigated both theoretically and experimentally. To this end, the phenomena of fluid mixing in ladles have been investigated in order to deduce the relationship between model and full scale gas flowrates, needed for maintaining dynamic similarity between the two. Starting with the governing equation for material transport, mixing times in geometrically and dynamically similar gas stirred systems were first correlated theoretically. On the basis of this, it is shown that, in the Froude dominated flow regime (typical of industrial ladle refining operations), the ratio of mixing times in geometrically and dynamically similar gas stirred systems can be represented in terms of the geometrical scale factor λ(=L mod /L fs ) according to τm,mod /τm,fs = λ1/2. To assess the adequacy and appropriateness of various scaling equations reported in the literature (namely Qmod /Q fs =λn, proposed values of nbeing 1·5, 2·5, and 2·75, respectively), extensive experimental measurements of mixing times were carried out in three differently sized water model ladles. To measure mixing times, the conventional conductivity measurement technique was adopted. Comparisons of experimental ratios of mixing times with the corresponding theoretical ratio (=λ1/2 ) confirm that, in the Froude dominated flow regime, the most appropriate criterion for dynamic similarity between model and full scale ladles is Q mod /Q fs = λ2·5. Such findings were also corroborated through consideration of empirical mixing time correlations reported for Froude dominated ladle flows.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".