MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353090565 · doi:10.3390/en16062910

Preferential Concentration of Particles in Forced Turbulent Flows: Effects of Gravity

2023· article· en· W4353090565 on OpenAlexaff
Guodong Gai, Olivier Thomine, A. Hadjadj, Sergey Kudriakov, Anthony Wachs

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStokes numberTurbulenceRange (aeronautics)PhysicsMechanicsParticle (ecology)Stokes' lawParticle numberProbability density functionNumber densityVorticityClassical mechanicsReynolds numberStokes flowVortexMathematicsGeologyMaterials scienceThermodynamicsFlow (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of gravity on the particle preferential concentration is investigated by direct numerical simulations in an Eulerian–Lagrangian framework for a large range of Stokes numbers Stη=0.01∼4. For particles with small Stokes numbers such as Stη=0.01, the gravity has minor effects on the particle spatial distribution in the turbulence. With increasing Stη, stripped structures of the high number density of particles appear and expand along the gravity direction. Different evaluation methods of particle preferential concentration are discussed such as the spatial distribution, the box index, and the probability density function. The number density of particles in the accumulating regions reduced under the influence of gravity. The reduction becomes prominent for the particle cloud at Stokes number Stη≈1, especially in the clusters of high particle number density. For large Stokes number Stη, the slip velocity significantly increases due to the particle gravity. Due to the gravity, the particle concentration reduces globally, particularly in the low vorticity regions. For the Stokes number range explored in this paper, gravity has a considerable impact on the particle-turbulence interaction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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