MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319932114 · doi:10.1021/ef100846r

Simulations of Axial Mixing of Liquids in a Long Horizontal Pipe for Industrial Applications

2010· article· en· W2319932114 on OpenAlexaff
Lingling Zhao, Derksen Jos, Rajender Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyMixing (physics)MechanicsTurbulenceReynolds numberComputational fluid dynamicsPipeline transportMixing patternsRange (aeronautics)Computer simulationMaterials scienceGeologyMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various industrial applications require the use of common pipelines or tubing to simultaneously or sequentially deliver multiple types of liquids. Dependent upon the application, long pipelines or tubing can range from several meters to several kilometers in length, composed of significant horizontal and vertical sections. Axial mixing is an important aspect of such flows of liquids in succession from a safety and reliability point of view. It is anticipated that mixing is due to turbulence and buoyancy, with the latter as a result of density differences of the mixing fluids. This paper sets out a numerical simulation model based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to fundamentally understand the mixing behavior of two miscible fluids under actual industrial-project-specific conditions. To benchmark its accuracy, the simulation model is first verified with respect to its numerical parameters using a short, 10 m pipe. Subsequently, a 100 m horizontal pipe is modeled, and we show that these results can be used to extrapolate longer length pipes. Finally, the sensitivity of mixing with respect to the Reynolds and Richardson numbers (characterizing buoyancy) has been investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207