A quantitative study of immiscible and miscible displacement flows in arotating pipe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Displacements of oil-based and water-based fluids, corresponding to miscible and immiscible fluids, exist widely in well cementing processes in the oil & gas industry.In this paper, we experimentally investigate the density-unstable miscible and immiscible displacement flows in an axially rotating pipe.The density of displacing fluid is larger than that of the displaced fluid (𝜌 ̂𝐻 > 𝜌 ̂𝐿).In our experiments, the density difference (quantified via 𝐴𝑡 = 0.041 ), the viscosity ratio ( 𝑀 = 0.22 ), and the inclination angle ( 𝛽 = 83° ) are kept constant.The pipe rotating speed (𝜔 ̂) and imposed flow velocity ( 𝑈 ̂0 ) are the most critical parameters in this study.Correspondingly, the effects of the imposed flow inertia and rotating inertia are investigated.Sequences of images are captured by a high-speed camera and their spatiotemporal concentration profiles are analyzed.The immiscible displacement flows are quantitatively analyzed and compared with miscible displacement flows.Based on our results, two kinds of downstream interfacial fronts are found in the immiscible displacement flow, but only one is witnessed in the miscible displacement flow.Also, our results show that, by increasing the imposed flow velocity, the interfacial front moves faster.On the other hand, when increasing the rotating speed, the first front velocities are slower.For displacement flows without a rotation, the first front velocities of the miscible displacement flows are smaller than those of the immiscible conditions.Nevertheless, for the displacement flows with a rotation, the first front velocities of the miscible displacement flows are larger than those of the immiscible conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".