Multi-Objective Optimization of Structural Parameters for Rotary Flow Jetting Tool Based on Orthogonal Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no precedent for the application of rotary flow jetting tool in the drainage gas recovery under gas wells. Based on the motion principles of jet flow and vortex flow, this paper designs a downhole rotary flow jetting tool, and verifies the feasibility of the tool through fluid simulation. Next, an indoor experiment device was established for drainage gas recovery with rotary flow jetting tool by the principle of similarity, and the structural parameters of the tool were subject to multi-objective optimization through orthogonal experiments. The optimized tool can achieve ideal rotary flow height and discharge volume. The results show that the proposed rotary flow jetting tool can effectively separate gas from liquid, and produce a rotary flow. The optimal structural parameters were determined as follows: the pitch diameter of spiral body is 45mm, the throat pipe length is 247mm, the spiral angle is 55°-60°, the spiral wing width is 4-6mm, and the nozzle diameter is 15-25mm. In addition, the number of side holes of the throat pipe has little effect on the jetting effect.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".