Prediction of Shock Wave Position Considering Non-Equilibrium Phase Change of Wet Natural Gas in Nozzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The existence of back pressure will cause shock wave in the Laval nozzle of the supersonic separator, which will lead to the condensed droplets to evaporate and reduce the separation efficiency of the separator. It is of great significance to determine the shock position and avoid the secondary evaporation of droplets for improving the separation efficiency. In this paper, one-dimensional isentropic flow function method was used to calculate the shock position in nozzle. A mathematical model of methane-water vapor was established. The results show that the pressure energy recovery leads to the shock wave. With the increase of energy recovery efficiency, the position of shock wave moves to the throat, which shortens the droplet growth space and reduces the liquefaction of Laval nozzle. When the pressure energy recovery efficiency is 56.25%, the liquid mass fraction is 1.63% at the outlet. The shock wave position error of theoretical calculation and numerical simulation increases with the enlargement of divergent angle when considering condensation. The average error between numerical simulation and theoretical calculation results was less than 5%, thus the one-dimensional isentropic flow function method can provide a theoretical basis for predicting the shock position.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".