MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391353035 · doi:10.3390/min14020150

A New Model for Predicting Drag Coefficient and Settling Velocity of Coarse Mineral Particles in Newtonian Fluid

2024· article· en· W4391353035 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenqiang Xu, Kaixiang Shen, Kewei Zhang, Nana Guo, Zijian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlingDrag coefficientMechanicsDragTerminal velocityNewtonian fluidNon-Newtonian fluidGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient transport in vertical pipeline hydraulic lifting systems is vital for coarse-grained ore, necessitating a deep comprehension of the settling traits of coarse mineral particles. In this study, we conducted a series of settling experiments on individual coarse particles in Newtonian fluids with varying viscosities, employing a self-designed and manufactured settling apparatus. A total of 133 sets of experimental data on the free settling of coarse particles in Newtonian fluids were obtained by recording the particle settling process with a high-speed camera and applying image processing techniques. A mechanical model was employed to perform statistical analysis on the experimental data and establish a predictive model for the drag coefficient and an explicit predictive model for the settling terminal velocity of coarse-grained ore in Newtonian fluids. The average relative errors between the predicted values and experimental values of the drag coefficient and settling terminal velocity models are 4.26% and 7.34%, respectively. This confirms the reliability of the provided predicted model, providing a theoretical foundation for determining the hydraulic lifting speed of coarse mineral particles in vertical pipelines for deep mining.

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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207