MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043715947 · doi:10.1063/1.4770310

Simulations of dilute sedimenting suspensions at finite-particle Reynolds numbers

2012· article· en· W2043715947 on OpenAlexafffund
Radompon Sungkorn, J.J. Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsPhysicsReynolds numberScalingAmplitudeDomain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMechanicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An alternative numerical method for suspension flows with application to sedimenting suspensions at finite-particle Reynolds numbers Rep is presented. The method consists of an extended lattice-Boltzmann scheme for discretizing the locally averaged conservation equations and a Lagrangian particle tracking model for tracking the trajectories of individual particles. The method is able to capture the main features of the sedimenting suspensions with reasonable computational expenses. Experimental observations from the literature have been correctly reproduced. It is numerically demonstrated that, at finite Rep, there exists a range of domain sizes in which particle velocity fluctuation amplitudes ⟨ΔV∥, ⊥⟩ have a strong domain size dependence, and above which the fluctuation amplitudes become weakly dependent. The size range strongly relates with Rep and the particle volume fraction ϕp. Furthermore, a transition in the fluctuation amplitudes is found at Rep around 0.08. The magnitude and length scale dependence of the fluctuation amplitudes at finite Rep are well represented by introducing new fluctuation amplitude scaling functions C1, (∥, ⊥)(Rep, ϕp) and characteristic length scaling function C2(Rep, ϕp) in the correlation derived by Segre et al. from their experiments at low Rep [“Long-range correlations in sedimentation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2574–2577 (1997)10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2574] in the form \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\begin{document}$\langle \Delta V_{\parallel , \perp } \rangle = \langle V_{\parallel } \rangle C_{1, ( \parallel , \perp )} ( Re_{p},\phi _{p} ) \phi _{p}^{1/3} \lbrace 1 - \text{exp} [ -L / ( C_{2} ( Re_{p}, \phi _{p} ) r_{p} \phi _{p}^{-1/3} )] \rbrace$\end{document}⟨ΔV∥,⊥⟩=⟨V∥⟩C1,(∥,⊥)(Rep,ϕp)ϕp1/3{1−exp[−L/(C2(Rep,ϕp)rpϕp−1/3)]}.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207