MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183027792 · doi:10.1063/5.0054906

Impact of particle loading and phase coupling on gas–solid flow dynamics: A case study of a two-phase, gas–solid flow in an annular pipe

2021· article· en· W3183027792 on OpenAlex
Ansan Pokharel, V’yacheslav Akkerman, İsmail Çelik, Richard L. Axelbaum, Alain Islas, Zhiwei Yang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsPhysicsParticle (ecology)Turbulence kinetic energyTwo-phase flowDispersion (optics)Flow (mathematics)Particle-laden flowsReynolds stressCoupling (piping)K-epsilon turbulence modelPhase (matter)Reynolds numberMaterials scienceOpticsComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is devoted to a two-phase, gas–solid flow in an annular pipe (hollow cylinder) at an elevated pressure of 15 bars and moderate Reynolds number of circa 6000. The influence of the particle loading, the interaction between the phases, and turbulence dispersion on the flow dynamics is systematically studied by means of computational fluid dynamics simulations, employing the Ansys FLUENT commercial package. The cases with a particle volumetric fraction of 1.2% are referred to as “high particle loading,” and those with 0.13% are denoted as “low particle loading.” The following cases are investigated: (1) pure gas flow; (2) low particle loading two-phase flow with one-way coupling and with turbulence dispersion; (3) low particle loading two-phase flow with two-way coupling but without turbulence dispersion; (4) low particle loading two-phase flow with two-way coupling and with turbulence dispersion; (5) high particle loading two-phase flow with one-way coupling and with turbulence dispersion; (6) high particle loading two-phase flow with two-way coupling but without turbulence dispersion; and (7) high particle loading two-phase flow with two-way coupling and with turbulence dispersion. The boundary layer is found to grow without fluctuations of the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) for cases 1, 2, and 5. For case 4, the TKE fluctuations have been identified, although they appear to be less substantial than those in cases 6 and 7. The authors attribute the semi-chaotic nature of the TKE fluctuations to the particle loading and two-way coupling. In addition, the onset and development of the flow instability have been observed at a random axial distance in cases 4, 6, and 7. Such instability is also attributed to the two-way coupling with turbulence dispersion in the flow. It is concluded that the particle loading, one-way, or two-way coupling between the phases, and the turbulence dispersion models significantly influence the development of the flow dynamics with the same inlet and boundary conditions. Consequently, it is not a trivial question, which result a user should trust. The present computational results inspire to perform verification as well as experimental validation of the simulations, so the simulation results can subsequently be used with confidence for design analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it