Numerical study of turbulent liquid‐liquid dispersions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical approach is developed to gain fundamental insight in liquid‐liquid dispersion formation under well‐controlled turbulent conditions. The approach is based on a free energy lattice Boltzmann equation method, and relies on detailed resolution of the interaction of the dispersed and continuous phase at the microscopic level, including drop breakup and coalescence. The capability of the numerical technique to perform direct numerical simulations of turbulently agitated liquid‐liquid dispersions is assessed. Three‐dimensional simulations are carried out in fully periodic cubic domains with grids of size . The liquids are of equal density. Viscosity ratios (dispersed phase over continuous phase) are in the range 0.3–1.0. The dispersed phase volume fraction varies from 0.001 to 0.2. The process of dispersion formation is followed and visualized. The size of each drop in the dispersion is measured in‐line with no disturbance of the flow. However, the numerical method is plagued by numerical dissolution of drops that are smaller than 10 times the lattice spacing. It is shown that to mitigate this effect it is necessary to increase the resolution of the Kolmogorov scales, such as to have a minimum drop size in the range 20–30 lattice units [lu]. Four levels of Kolmogorov length scale resolution have been considered , 2.5, 5, and 10 [lu]. In addition, the numerical dissolution reduces if the concentration of the dispersed phase is increased. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 2618–2633, 2015
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it