MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887508282 · doi:10.11159/mmme18.105

CFD Friction Factors Verification in an Underground Mine

2018· article· en· W2887508282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marc Bascompta, Jordi Vives, Lluís Sanmiquel Pera, José Juan de Felipe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMining engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friction factor determination is necessary to model the ventilation system in an underground mine. These parameters were obtained by means of in situ measurements in two potash mines between 2013-2015 [1-2], obtaining an adjusted model to the reality in terms of airflow distribution. In this study, the friction factors were verified by means of a CFD software. The simulation of the air behaviour inside the mine drifts was done using a multiphysical numerical model of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The well-known FLOW-3D software was applied to numerically solve Navier-Stokes equations for solution domains, introducing deviations and mean values of airflow and cross-sections. A standard k-Ypsilon model was used to estimate turbulence flow. These models are based on the fluid volume method and are capable of simulating ventilation flow conditions. Results obtained by this method displayed similar friction factors to the values obtained from in situ measurements.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207