MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805132443 · doi:10.11159/ffhmt18.121

Numerical Analysis of Turbulent Natural Convection in LNG Storage

2018· article· en· W2805132443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Djeghdjegh Amel, Mohamed Belmedani, Salhi Yacine

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceNatural convectionMeteorologyMechanicsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeologyMarine engineeringConvectionPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, the heat infiltration through the walls of the liquefied naturel gas (LNG) storage tanks is considered a principal source of security problems throughout the supply and distribution chain. In effect, these infiltrations cause evaporation of LNG coupled with stratification phenomenon, which begat a substantial loss in the quantity and quality of the product and may affect the safe storage. the recent work has been published on the effect of heat infiltration on the storage of cryogenic liquids, with used a parietal heat flux of 50 W/m 2 , and the case when them while used up to 330 W/m 2 . In our case, our objective is to make a study of the natural convection turbulent in a LNG storage, description of temperature and velocity profiles particularly at the boundary layer and generates contours by a movement of fluid in the tank. The software used to observe the evolution different parameters. We took into account two types of storage tank 37 000 m 3 and 160 000m 3 with the number of Ra varies between 10 7 and 10 15 , with two turbulence model K SST for the boundary layer away to walls and model k for tank to study significant variations with a minimum constant heat flux of 50 W/m 2 and we increase up to 500 W/m 2 .

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 score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass TransferSame topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207