MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805862632 · doi:10.2118/191133-pa

Assessment of the Equivalent Sandbed Roughness and the Interfacial Friction Factor in Hole Cleaning With Water in a Fully Eccentric Horizontal Annulus

2018· article· en· W2805862632 on OpenAlexafffund
Majid Bizhani, Ergün Kuru

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnnulus (botany)MechanicsParticle image velocimetryBed loadMaterials scienceSurface finishSurface roughnessTurbulenceGeotechnical engineeringShape factorComputational fluid dynamicsShear velocityErosionFlow (mathematics)VelocimetryFriction factorGeologyReynolds numberComposite materialSediment transportGeometrySedimentPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this study, we have investigated the turbulent flow of water over the sandbed deposited in a horizontal eccentric annulus. The primary objective was to determine the effect of the presence of a sandbed on the parameters strongly involved in the bed-erosion process, such as the local fluid-velocity profiles near the interface, the equivalent sandbed roughness, and the average and the interfacial friction factors. The particle-image-velocimetry (PIV) technique was used to measure the velocity distribution at the water/sandbed interface. The bedload transport of particles caused an abrupt increase in the equivalent sandbed roughness. Analyses of the velocity profiles in the wall units confirmed that the sandbed roughness is variable and can be several times greater than the mean particle size. The interfacial ( fi) and the average friction factors ( fa) were evaluated and compared with flow under the stationary-bed and the bedload-transport conditions. The interfacial friction factor increased dramatically at the onset of the bed erosion. We have also found that depending on the bed height (or the surface area of the bed at the interface), the interfacial friction factor can be significantly different from the average friction factor. The results presented here provide much-needed experimental data for the validation of the mechanistic, semimechanistic (empirical), and numerical [computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD)] models of the bed erosion process. The major conclusion of the study is that the difference between the average and interfacial friction factors should be taken into account for more-realistic multilayer modeling of the hole cleaning.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207