On the prediction of gas hold‐up in two‐phase flow systems using an Euler–Euler model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We quantify the ability of the two‐fluid Euler–Euler model to predict the overall gas hold‐up during two‐phase flow in vertical columns using a combination of experiments and simulations. Gas hold‐up in a bubble column and gas hold‐up in the less‐frequently studied co‐current flow are investigated. For homogeneous flow characterized by nearly uniform bubble size, Euler–Euler model predictions are within 10% of the experimental values for both modes of operation, if the bubble diameter supplied as input to the model is the average bubble diameter in the physical system. This also holds true for heterogeneous flow in bubble columns despite the presence of a broad distribution of bubble sizes, if turbulence and bubble swarm effects on momentum exchange between phases are properly accounted for. Swarm corrections adequate for bubble columns, are less successful for co‐current heterogeneous flow, for which gas hold‐up predictions are least accurate (average error of 22%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".