MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756269076 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23018

New two‐phase and three‐phase Rachford‐Rice algorithms based on free‐water assumption

2017· article· en· W2756269076 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ruixue Li, Huazhou Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsInitializationFlash evaporationFlash (photography)Phase (matter)Free waterThree-phaseComputer scienceAlgorithmThermodynamicsChemistryEnvironmental sciencePhysicsOpticsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the free‐water assumption that the water‐rich liquid phase contains only pure water, we develop two simple free‐water Rachford‐Rice methods: 1) a two‐phase free‐water Rachford‐Rice method where the phase fractions can be analytically solved; and 2) a three‐phase free‐water Rachford‐Rice method where there is only one unknown in the objective function (i.e. the vapour‐phase fraction) that is used for solving the phase fractions. Combining these two Rachford‐Rice methods, a new free‐water flash algorithm is developed to perform multiphase flash calculations where single‐phase equilibria, two‐phase equilibria, and three‐phase vapour‐liquid‐aqueous equilibria can be considered. In this free‐water flash algorithm, we first test if the mixture is stable; if the mixture is found to be unstable, we directly initiate the three‐phase free‐water flash. A set of criteria is developed for one to properly switch from a three‐phase free‐water flash to either a two‐phase free‐water flash or a conventional two‐phase flash, depending on whether a water‐rich phase is present in the two‐phase equilibrium. We also develop efficient and robust methods for initializing the equilibrium ratios for the two‐phase flashes. The negative flash is allowed in the flash calculation algorithms. A number of example calculations are carried out to demonstrate the robustness of the newly developed algorithm. A good agreement can be achieved between the flash results obtained by the new flash algorithm and those obtained by the conventional full three‐phase flash algorithm.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
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 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207