MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394847269 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.270

Characterization of partial wetting by CMAS droplets using multiphase many-body dissipative particle dynamics and data-driven discovery based on PINNs

2024· article· en· W4394847269 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdi Kooshkbaghi, Khemraj Shukla, Rahul Koneru, Zhen Li, Luis Bravo, Anindya Ghoshal, George Em Karniadakis, Mikko Karttunen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesArmy Research OfficeBasic Energy SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaClemson UniversityAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaMitacsWestern UniversityOffice of ScienceArmy Research LaboratoryCanada Research ChairsBrown UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of DefenseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOdeDissipative particle dynamicsWettingSurface tensionRADIUSParametric statisticsMechanicsMaterials scienceDissipative systemParticle (ecology)Contact angleOrdinary differential equationStatistical physicsViscosityComputer scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsDifferential equationApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The molten sand that is a mixture of calcia, magnesia, alumina and silicate, known as CMAS, is characterized by its high viscosity, density and surface tension. The unique properties of CMAS make it a challenging material to deal with in high-temperature applications, requiring innovative solutions and materials to prevent its buildup and damage to critical equipment. Here, we use multiphase many-body dissipative particle dynamics simulations to study the wetting dynamics of highly viscous molten CMAS droplets. The simulations are performed in three dimensions, with varying initial droplet sizes and equilibrium contact angles. We propose a parametric ordinary differential equation (ODE) that captures the spreading radius behaviour of the CMAS droplets. The ODE parameters are then identified based on the physics-informed neural network (PINN) framework. Subsequently, the closed-form dependency of parameter values found by the PINN on the initial radii and contact angles are given using symbolic regression. Finally, we employ Bayesian PINNs (B-PINNs) to assess and quantify the uncertainty associated with the discovered parameters. In brief, this study provides insight into spreading dynamics of CMAS droplets by fusing simple parametric ODE modelling and state-of-the-art machine-learning techniques.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207