Coupled CFD-DEM Simulation of Seed Flow in Horizontal-Vertical Tube Transition
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
A series of computational fluid dynamics–discrete element method (CFD-DEM) simulations were applied to seed flow in horizontal-vertical 90-degree elbows. The performance of one-way and two-way CFD-DEM coupling methods was compared. Additionally, simulated seed velocities were compared to the current pneumatic conveying theory for each coupling method. Simulated field peas (Pisum sativum) were pneumatically conveyed to study the effect of air velocity (20, 25, and 30 m/s), seed rate (0.07, 0.21, and 0.42 kg/s), elbow diameter, D, (48.3, 60.3, and 72.4 mm), and elbow bend radius (1.5D, 2.5D, 3.5D, and 4.5D) on seed attributes (trajectory, velocity, and force). Results showed that seed velocity was significantly different between one-way and two-way coupling. Both methods resulted in nearly identical seed trajectory and force. Overall, simulated seed velocities had a strong correlation to values calculated through the current pneumatic conveyance theory. Dimensional analysis revealed that seed contact force was proportional to the elbow diameter to the power of 0.26 and inversely proportional to the elbow bend radius to the power of 0.5. Simulation results indicated that one-way coupling could be suitable to describe seed flow when two-way coupling may not be possible or practical.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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