Liquid film thickness of two‐phase slug flows in capillary microchannels: A review paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two‐phase Taylor flow has received considerable attention from researchers in recent decades due to its potential use in a wide variety of industrial and medical applications. A large number of experimental, analytical, and numerical efforts have been taken by researchers to understand the fundamental characteristics of two‐phase flows and the relevant transport phenomena. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the hydrodynamics, flow pattern, and liquid film thickness in two‐phase flows through mini‐ and microchannels with different cross‐sectional geometry. This paper also reviews correlations that predict liquid film thickness in microchannels for gas‐liquid and liquid‐liquid flows. The variations of liquid film thickness are plotted over a wide range of capillary numbers for both experimental and computational studies. This study shows that the effects of cross‐sectional area on the flow patterns and flow characteristics have not been sufficiently investigated by researchers, particularly for rectangular cross‐sectional areas with different aspect ratios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".