Numerical modeling of polydisperse two-phase flows in an ax-isymmetric de Laval nozzle with account for the Magnus force acting on rotating droplets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The available papers on two-phase flows in de Laval nozzles are focused on the effect of various initial conditions, models of coagulation, fragmentation, and rotation of droplets on their local and integral characteristics. Some papers note that due to the difference in the velocities of the gas and droplets along the nozzle axis, the Magnus force acts on the rotating droplets perpendicular to the specified difference and deflects the trajectories of the droplets toward the nozzle wall. In an earlier paper, the authors proposed a mathematical model of a two-phase flow in an axisymmetric de Laval nozzle that accounts for the Magnus force on the basis of the kinetic equation. The present article is devoted to a numerical study of a polydisperse two-phase flow in a de Laval nozzle with account for the coagulation, fragmentation, and rotation of droplets and the Magnus force. This study is based on the “monodisperse” model of fragments developed by I.M. Vasenin and A.A. Shreiber, the method of labeled drops (the Lagrange method), and the finite-difference schemes of second order accuracy. The calculations are carried out for a test nozzle configuration with condensate formation on the nozzle wall both with and without the Magnus force accounted. The calculated results show that the Magnus force has different impacts on the trajectories of droplets of various sizes. It should be noted that the limiting trajectories of the droplets approach the nozzle wall due to the Magnus force, resulting in the earlier dropout on the wall. Therefore, when designing the divergent section of the nozzle, it is necessary to consider the revealed approach of the location of the dropout, which is associated with the Magnus force, to the nozzle throat.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".