MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583221790

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF TWO-PHASE BUBBLY FLOW PRESSURE DROP ACROSS A HORIZONTAL PIPE CONTAINING 90° BENDS

2016· article· en· W2583221790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert C. Bowden, Sun-Kyu Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure dropTurbulenceMechanicsPipe flowTwo-phase flowMaterials scienceDrop (telecommunication)Prandtl numberBubbleFlow (mathematics)GeologyHeat transferPhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-phase gas–liquid pressure drop was experimentally investigated in a 9 m long, 50.8 mm internal diameter, horizontal test section containing 2 closely spaced 90° bends. Bubble and dispersed flow regimes were achieved at superficial liquid and gas velocities that were varied from 3.50 to 5.42 m/s, and 0.10 to 1.25 m/s, respectively. Single-phase and two-phase flow pressure drop tests were performed to evaluate major and minor loss coefficients. The Lockhart–Martinelli parameters were modified through the addition of a minor loss term, and results were compared with Chisholm’s turbulent-turbulent gas–liquid pressure drop model. Three different pipe configurations were evaluated. They consisted of a single straight pipe, a straight pipe with a single 90° bend, and straight pipe with two 90° bends. Both Blasius’ and Prandtl’s smooth pipe models were evaluated to predict the two-phase frictional losses, while single- and two-phase minor loss coefficients were tested with varying degrees of effectiveness. Ov...

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207