Comparative Analysis of Coalescence and Breakage Kernels in Vertical Gas‐Liquid Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of bubble size distribution is an important consideration in vertical gas‐liquid flow, especially in determining the appropriate mass, momentum, and heat transfer between two phases. In order to adequately capture the distribution and to account for its effect on the local hydrodynamics, which generally represents the dominant flow characteristic in such a practical system, a numerical assessment has been performed to understand the six widely adopted different bubble coalescence and bubble breakage kernels. Three different breakage kernels have been selected where each kernel considers a different shape of the daughter size distribution of the bubbles, such as the U‐shape, bell‐shape, and M‐shape. These are combined with different coalescence kernels. The bubble size distribution, void fraction, interfacial area concentration, and gas velocity profiles are compared against the experimental data. Numerical results reveal that the effect on the two‐phase flow structure is mainly due to the application of the different breakage kernels. Moreover, the predicted results also show that the bell‐shape daughter size distribution favours equal breakage of bubbles, which could lead to the over‐prediction of large bubbles. A more sophisticated model for handling bubble induced turbulence should nonetheless be applied in future investigations of vertical gas‐liquid flow.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".