An experimental investigation of high‐viscosity oil‐water flow in a horizontal pipe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation on high‐viscosity oil‐water flow in a horizontal pipe (I.D. = 26 mm) has been conducted. The oil viscosity investigated varied between 3800 and 16 000 mPa · s. Flow patterns observed in experiments are presented and flow pattern maps are reported. The inversion from oil‐continuous to annular‐water‐continuous is discussed. The average pressure gradient of oil‐continuous two‐phase flow can be reduced before the inversion to annular‐water‐continuous flow due to partial lubrication from discontinuous water streams. The stable water‐lubricated flow develops at a lower input water volume fraction with increase of the superficial oil velocity. An empirical criterion for the formation of stable water‐lubricated flow was proposed in terms of the oil phase Froude number and the input water volume fraction. The friction factor of water‐lubricated flow can be one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of single‐phase water flow and has a faster decrease with increase of the Reynolds number than that of single‐phase turbulent flow. These are linked to the oil fouling on the pipe wall. Models for the prediction of the pressure gradient of core flow proposed by different authors in the literature were evaluated with the experimental data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".