Assessment of Void Fraction Correlations for Adiabatic Two-Phase Flows in Microchannels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, firstly a review is presented on our previous study of void fraction for adiabatic gas-liquid two-phase flows in horizontal microchannels. Water/nitrogen gas and/or ethanol-water-solution/nitrogen gas were pumped through circular microchannels of 50, 75, 100, 176, 251 and 530 μm in diameter. The concentration of ethanol in water was varied to change the surface tension and the liquid viscosity. The void fraction data for the 50 to 100 μm diameter channels showed non-linear variation against a homogenous void fraction, but the data for 251 and 530 μm diameter channels varied linearly with the homogeneous void fraction. Secondly, the data have been compared with the predictions of various correlations usually applied to mini/micro-channels as well as conventional size channels. Since no correlation could predict well all of our data, a new correlation has been proposed based on our data. It was found that the calculated void fraction by the proposed correlation agreed with all the data within 0.1, irrespective of channel diameters and the liquid properties.Copyright © 2005 by ASME
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) | 0.001 | 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".