Research on the heat and mass transfer mechanisms for growth of hydrate shell from gas bubbles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a fundamental study for hydrate utilization technologies, hydrate growth is a complicated rate‐limiting process controlled by heat and mass transfer mechanisms. Generally, the experimental data of hydrate shell lateral growth in the literature are compiled based on the system subcooling, while those of hydrate shell vertical growth are compiled based on the molecular mobility of the hydrate formers and water. In this study, we quantitatively investigate the dominating factors for hydrate film growth considering the opposite mass or heat transfer limitations, which can explain the observed phenomena from the literature more comprehensively. Firstly, a model is derived to describe the lateral growth of hydrate shell considering the convective mass transfer and effective concentration driving force at the film front. It can demonstrate the important effects of subcooling and other system factors such as gas type, aqueous solution, and system pressure on hydrate shell lateral growth. Secondly, an improved self‐similar model is presented to simulate the process of hydrate shell thickening considering the heat transfer limitation. The simulation results indicate that the hydrate shell growth rate decreases with a decrease in the subcooling and an increase in the bubble radius.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".