Numerical simulation of fine particle liquid–solid flow in porous media based on LBM‐IBM‐DEM
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fine particle liquid–solid flow in porous media is involved in many industrial processes such as oil exploitation, geothermal reinjection, and filtration systems. It is of great significance to master the behaviours of the fine particle liquid–solid flow in porous media. At present, there are few studies on the influences of the migration of fine particles on the flow field in porous media, and the effects of the porosity of porous media and inlet fluid velocity on the migration behaviours of fine particles in porous media. In this paper, a liquid–solid flow model was established based on the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM)‐immersed boundary method (IBM)‐distinct element method (DEM) and verified by the classical Drag Kiss Tumble (DKT) phenomena and flow around a cylinder successfully. In this model, the interaction between solid particles is analyzed using the distinct element method, and the interaction between fine particles and flow field is handled by IBM. Then, the migration and blockage of fine particles in porous media was studied using this model. It is found that, in addition to the blockage, a large amount of blocked‐surface sliding‐separation occur in fine particles. At the same time, the decrease in porosity increases the damage degree of fine particles on the permeability. The porosity exerts great influence on the penetration rate and dispersion behaviour of fine particles. The inlet fluid velocity mainly affects the residence time of fine particles and the average velocity of motion in the direction perpendicular to the main flow direction.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it