MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243368514 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14657025.v1

Prediction Of Particle Laden Flow In Gas Pipe

2021· preprint· en· W4243368514 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen. Hedayati-dezfooli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsTwo-phase flowParticle (ecology)Flow (mathematics)EddyDispersion (optics)Particle sizeParticle numberMaterials sciencePhysicsChemistryGeologyThermodynamicsOpticsVolume (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, the behavior of various sizes of black powder particulates, carried by a turbulent flow of natural gas, is numerically predicated in a horizontal pipeline. The particles are magnetite and are considered as discrete or a dispersed phase; however, the gas phase is considered as a continuous phase. The numerical approach taken to simulate the dispersed phase is a Lagrangian approach, which is essentially computation of particles trajectories. The turbulence effect on the dispersion of the particles, due to turbulent eddies in the gas phase, is predicted using a stochastic discrete-particle approach. Several case studies have been examined and they include: instantaneous injection of diverse particle sizes, continuous injection of five different particle sizes and multiple injection. For the case with instantaneous injection, it has been found that sudden injection of relatively high mass loading of particles would alter the flow profile in the core region and subsequently increases the turbulent intensity. For all cases it has been found that most particles in the core region of the flow move faster than the gas. Also, for all studied cases, the velocity profiles of gas and particles, at different pipeline stations, have been presented and analyzed.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207