An Analysis of CFD-DEM with Coarse Graining for Turbulent Particle-Laden Jet Flows
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
This paper presents the results of simulations of particle-laden air–solid jet flow in long straight tubes using CFD-DEM, along with an analysis of coarse-graining. Although previous studies have used CFD-DEM for similar flows, these have typically been in a dilute flow regime where uncoupled simulations can be used effectively. However, fully coupled simulations can introduce issues, necessitating validation studies to ensure that all coupling parameters are effectively used and that the physics is accurately represented. This paper validated the simulations against two different experimental studies, with fluid Reynolds numbers between 10,000 and 40,000 and Stokes numbers between 5.6 and 50. Interestingly, the profiles of the mean particle velocity exhibited fewer discrepancies as the Stokes number increased, but more discrepancies for the root-mean-squared velocity compared to the experiments. The particle number flux was consistent with the experiments after the nozzle exit. Coarse-graining was also applied to the same simulations, achieving relatively accurate results. However, as expected, the scaling of contact collision frequencies, forces, and stresses could not be achieved, meaning that coarse-graining may be useful for comparing designs or operating parameters on an industrial scale, but falls short when measuring the total energy dissipation of one experiment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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