EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF PRESSURE AND VOID FRACTION CHANGES FOR TWO-PHASE FLOW THROUGH FLOW-RESTRICTING ORIFICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the change of pressure and void fraction of adiabatic air-water two-phase flow through orifices are experimentally investigated.Horizontal pipes with an internal diameter of 25.4 mm with multiple orifices with area ratios of 0.062, 0.14, 0.25 and 0.54 are considered.Both pressure and void fraction distributions upstream and downstream of the orifice are obtained for intermittent flow patterns and are compared with a straight pipe without the restriction for gas superficial velocity of 0.657 m/s and liquid superficial velocity of 0.523 m/s.The flow redistribution across the orifices is also recorded using a high-speed imaging camera at a frame rate of up to 3 kHz.The effect of the area ratio on the local pressure and void fraction upstream and downstream of the restriction is investigated.The results show that the fully developed void fraction upstream of the orifice increased with the increase in the pressure-drop across the orifice.Far from the orifice, the values of the average pressure gradient and the time average void fraction of the piping with orifices approached the fully developed values similar to the case of the straight pipe without restriction.The flow pattern changes across the orifice are found to significantly depend on the area ratio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".