MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089473042 · doi:10.1115/imece2005-81493

Bounds on Two-Phase Flow: Part I — Frictional Pressure Gradient in Circular Pipes

2005· article· en· W2089473042 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed M. Awad, Yuri S. Muzychka

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Boiling Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimensionless quantityTurbulenceMass fluxPressure gradientMechanicsSaturation (graph theory)Upper and lower boundsPipe flowFlow (mathematics)Two-phase flowBounded functionThermodynamicsPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simple rules are developed for obtaining rational bounds for two-phase frictional pressure gradient. Both the lower and upper bounds are based on the separate cylinders formulation. The lower bound is based on turbulent-turbulent flow that uses the Blasius equation to represent the Fanning friction factor. The upper bound is based on an equation that represents well the Lockhart-Martinelli correlation for turbulent-turbulent flow. The model is verified using published experimental data of two-phase frictional pressure gradient versus mass flux at constant mass quality. The published data include different working fluids such as R-12 and R-22 at different mass qualities, different pipe diameters, and different saturation temperatures. It is shown that the published data can be well bounded for a wide range of mass fluxes, mass qualities, pipe diameters and saturation temperatures. The bounds models are also presented in a dimensionless form as two-phase frictional multiplier (φl and φg) versus Lockhart-Martinelli parameter (X) for different working fluids such as R-12, R-22, air-oil and air-water mixtures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluids EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and Boiling StudiesFrench-language works237,207