Modelling of condensing steam flows in Laval nozzles with ANSYS CFX
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
The results of the International Wet Steam Modelling Project presented at the Wet Steam Conference in Prague in 2016 again gave rise to a discussion about the suitability of the flow solver ANSYS CFX for the prediction of spontaneous condensation. In this article, the main reason for the discrepancy between results obtained with CFX and measurement data is identified. It could be found that in CFX the temperature of already existing droplets is used for evaluating the fluid properties involved in the nucleation process. This is not in agreement with the isothermal classical nucleation theory, which is based on the assumption that clusters of critical radius are formed at vapour temperature. The most dominant parameter affected by this is the surface tension, the evaluation of which can be altered easily by the user. The influence of the correction is illustrated by means of standard Laval nozzle test cases, and a significant improvement of the results compared to measurement data can be observed.
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