MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401172862 · doi:10.1115/1.4066089

Stability of Plane Parallel Flow Revisited for Particle–Fluid Suspensions

2024· article· en· W4401172862 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Q. Ru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStokes numberReynolds numberParticle (ecology)Newtonian fluidMechanicsParticle-laden flowsPhysicsCompressibilityPlane (geometry)Work (physics)Suspension (topology)Inclined planeStokes flowFlow (mathematics)Classical mechanicsFluid dynamicsTwo-phase flowThermodynamicsMathematicsGeometryTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An alternative model is proposed for hydrodynamic stability of plane parallel flow of an incompressible Newtonian fluid with suspended solid particles. For heavy particle-laden dusty gases with negligible particle volume fraction, the effective complex-form mean velocity in the modified Orr–Sommerfeld equation derived by the present model is showed to be essentially identical to the well-known Saffman's classical results. In the limit cases of small or large Stokes number of particles, simple formulas are derived for the effective Reynolds number ratio of the particle-laden suspension to the clear fluid without particles under otherwise identical conditions. The derived formula for particles of finite particle-to-fluid density ratio and small Stokes number is verified by comparing predicted results with known data, although a comparison of the derived formula with known results for particles of finite density ratio and large Stokes number cannot be made here due to the lack of available data. It is hoped that the present work could offer a conceptually novel and relatively simplified model for hydrodynamics of solid particle–fluid suspensions.

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)0.001
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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MechanicsSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207