MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical and Mathematical Modelling of Inert Gas Shrouding in a Tundish

2011· article· en· W2041152491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShroudTundishLadleWater modelTurbulenceMechanicsBubbleVolume of fluid methodMaterials scienceCompressibilityFlow (mathematics)Continuous castingMechanical engineeringMetallurgyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inert gas shrouding practices in water model tundishes were mathematically simulated using the finite volume based program ANSYS 12. The fluid within the tundish and the ladle shroud was assumed to be Newtonian and incompressible (water), and the flow within the shroud was assumed to be predominantly bubbly i.e. discrete bubbles are formed, and these move down the shroud along with the down-flowing water. Thus, the numerical model was developed using the Discrete Phase Modeling (DPM) approach, along with the standard k-ε turbulence model with two way turbulence coupling. Predicted flow fields, slag behaviour and bubble trajectories were investigated and then compared with experiments in the full scale and one third scale water model tundishes. Various experimental measurements compared well with predictions from the mathematical model, which was shown to slightly over-estimate depths of penetration of the bubble column by 5–15%.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it