MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306773895 · doi:10.3390/w14203290

Two-Phase Flow Modeling for Bed Erosion by a Plane Jet Impingement

2022· article· en· W4306773895 on OpenAlexaff
Damien Pham Van Bang, Miguel Uh Zapata, Georges Gauthier, Philippe Gondret, Wei Zhang, Kim Dan Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsFinite volume methodJet (fluid)ErosionFlow (mathematics)ScalingTwo-phase flowPlane (geometry)Impact craterMomentum (technical analysis)GeologyPhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents experimental and numerical studies on the erosion of a horizontal granular bed by a two-dimensional plane vertical impinging jet to predict the eroded craters’ size scaling (depth and width). The simulations help understand the microscopic processes that govern erosion in this complex flow. A modified jet-bed distance, accounting for the plane jet virtual origin, is successfully used to obtain a unique relationship between the crater size and a local Shields parameter. This work develops a two-phase flow numerical model to reproduce the experimental results. The numerical techniques are based on a finite volume formulation to approximate spatial derivatives, a projection technique to calculate the pressure and velocity for each phase, and a staggered grid to avoid spurious oscillations. Different options for the sediment’s solid-to-liquid transition during erosion are proposed, tested, and discussed. One model is based on unified equations of continuum mechanics, others on modified closure equations for viscosity or momentum transfer. A good agreement between the numerical solutions and the experimental measurements is obtained.

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 score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207