MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389488803 · doi:10.1063/5.0176166

Investigation on spontaneous liquid–liquid imbibition in capillaries with varying axial geometries using lattice Boltzmann method

2023· article· en· W4389488803 on OpenAlexaff
Shengting Zhang, Jing Li, Zhangxin Chen, Keliu Wu, Qingyuan Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsImbibitionPhysicsCapillary actionMechanicsContact angleLattice Boltzmann methodsWettingViscosityGeometryCapillary numberClassical mechanicsThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous liquid–liquid imbibition in capillaries with irregular axial geometries is common in the petroleum industry. Monitoring the real-time dynamic contact angle (DCA) of the meniscus is crucial during such processes. In this work, we extend the Bell–Cameron–Lucas–Washburn (BCLW) equation by considering the axial shape of the capillaries, inertial force, and non-wetting fluid viscosity. We also develop a cascaded multi-component Shan–Chen lattice Boltzmann method (CLBM) with a modified mass-conservative curved boundary scheme to accurately simulate imbibition processes in sinusoidal capillaries. The results indicate that the DCA is highly sensitive to variations in the axial geometry of the capillary during imbibition, displaying a periodic time evolution pattern. When the axial geometry diverges, the DCA increases, and when it converges, the DCA decreases. The viscosity ratio affects the imbibition velocity, controlling the evolution period and extreme values of the DCA. A critical contact angle exists for a fixed capillary axial geometry and viscosity ratio. Continuous spontaneous imbibition occurs if the static contact angle is smaller than this critical value. However, if it exceeds this threshold, imbibition ceases within regions where axial geometry divergence. Moreover, we noticed a discrepancy in imbibition lengths predicted by the extended BCLW equation that ignores the DCA compared to those computed through the CLBM. To address this issue, we employed CLBM to monitor the DCA in real time and used the gathered data to refine the extended BCLW equation. As a result, the prediction of imbibition lengths by the extended BCLW equation for coupling the DCA became more accurate.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207