Influence of droplet coalescence and breakup on the separation process in wave‐plate separators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate the numerical simulation method regarding the coalescence and breakup of droplets occurring during the gas‐liquid separation process and their influence on the separation efficiency and pressure drop. The Euler‐Lagrange method was used, and the discrete phase was simulated as an unsteady process. The results of the study indicate that numerical simulation results show better agreement with the experiment results when the coalescence and breakup model is taken into account. During the unsteady process, it was concluded that the simulation can meet the accuracy requirements as long as the Courant number of droplets is less than 1/3. The coalescence increases the droplet diameter, which improves the separation efficiency and reduces the pressure drop, whereas the opposite effect occurs with the breakup. Compared with other factors, the influence of the surface tension on the coalescence and breakup is more apparent, and droplets with a lower surface tension may be prone to coalescing or breaking. The coalescence occurs with a lower separation velocity, whereas breakup becomes predominant with higher separation velocity. The present research provides valuable suggestions on choosing strategies to improve the separation efficiency. For droplets with small surface tension, the separation velocity is restricted to not resulting breakup, and the separation efficiency can be improved by changing the shapes and spaces of the wave plate. In contrast, for droplets with large surface tension, increasing the velocity is an effective way to improve the separation efficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".