Experimental Comparison of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Multiphase Flow in Horizontal Pipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two-phase flow of gas/Newtonian and gas/non-Newtonian fluid through pipes occurs frequently in the chemical industry as well as in petroleum refining. Extensive experimental and theoretical research has been carried out on these systems in order to better understand their behaviour under different conditions regarding pressure, temperature and mixture concentrations. In this study, experimental apparatuses are used to investigate two-phase flow of gas/liquid systems through pipes. Air is used as the gas in the experiments, while water is used as the Newtonian fluid and Xanthan gum as the non-Newtonian fluid. The objectives of the study are to compare pressure drops when the same gas flows simultaneously with Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids through tubes. The comparison here is between experimental pressure drops and estimated pressure drops, based on available empirical correlations for gas/Newtonian and gas/non-Newtonian flow. The trend exhibited by the pressure drops in both systems helps us to better understand the relationship between mixture flow pressure drops in Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids and thereby develop a new experimental model. The tube diameter for the flow loop is 3/4 inch and the flow type ranges from transient to turbulent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".