A novel analytical method predicts plug boundaries of bingham plastic fluids for laminar flow through annulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Bingham plastic fluids, a central pre‐yield or plug region exists in the middle of the concentric annular flow. In this region, the local shear stress is less than the dynamic yield stress, so the plug behaves like a rigid solid. This is the main feature that distinguishes the flow of a Bingham plastic fluid from that of a power law fluid. In this work, a simple‐to‐use correlation is developed to predict the boundaries of the plug of Bingham plastic fluids for laminar flow through annulus as a function of dimensionless yield stress and aspect ratio parameters for given values of the rheological constants, pressure gradient and the dimensions of the annulus. The results are found to be in excellent agreement with reported data in the literature with an average absolute deviation of less than 1.7%. The predictive tool is simple and straightforward and can be readily implemented in a standard spreadsheet program. The prime application of the method is as a quick‐and‐easy evaluation tool in engineering studies where plug boundaries of Bingham plastic fluids for laminar flow through annulus are being considered. The method may also serve as a benchmark in numerical and rigorous simulation studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".