AERATED CIRCULAR AND ELLIPTICAL LIQUID JETS IN A GASEOUS CROSSFLOW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the atomization of an effervescent atomizer with an elliptical and circular orifice was investigated experimentally in the gaseous crossflow. The shadowgraph technique was used to visualize the near field of the spray atomization. To measure the spray penetration height in crossflow, image processing was performed on the shadowgraph images based on two different approaches: (i) a threshold analysis of average spray images and (ii) standard deviation images of spray. By comparing these two approaches, it is found that the penetration heights obtained from the standard deviation images were much higher since these images were able to capture small droplets more accurately. Moreover, based on the standard deviation images of spray, an empirical correlation for the spray penetration height was developed as a function of gas-liquid mass flowrate ratio, liquid-air momentum flux ratio, orifice aspect ratio, and downstream location. The laser diffraction technique was used to analyze the particle size of the aerated elliptical and aerated circular jets in a gaseous crossflow. For each orifice shape, the effect of gas-liquid ratio and downstream location on the Sauter mean diameter (SMD) was studied. The results show that the aerated circular jet penetrates higher into the gaseous crossflow than the aerated elliptical jet. Besides, the aerated circular jet in crossflow mainly generates smaller drop sizes compared to the aerated elliptical jet.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".