Analysis of flow regimes and volumetric phase fraction of vertical upward gas–liquid–solid three‐phase flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gas–liquid–solid flows are important in many industrial productions and processes. The hydrodynamic of gas–liquid–solid three‐phase vertical upward flows and how the presence of solid particles may affect the two‐phase flow system properties are less investigated and understood compared to gas–liquid two‐phase flow. The present study is an attempt to bridge this gap in vertical pipe through an experimental investigation of flow regimes and volumetric holdup with solid particles less dense than liquid phase, similar to hydrates. The experiments are carried out using air–water and polypropylene pellets solid particles and a 30 mm ID vertical pipe. Three solid volumetric concentrations (5%, 10%, and 20%) were investigated, and the results are compared with those obtained with gas–liquid two‐phase flow. In the conditions of experimental measurements carried out, four flow regimes, namely cap bubble‐to‐slug, slug, churn, and dispersed bubble flows, were reported. These flow regimes were observed on both two‐phase and three‐phase flow conditions. Meanwhile, the injection of solids induced a shift of slug‐to‐churn flow transition. The study allows notably to prove that the existing predictive models of flow transition and liquid holdup developed for two‐phase flow can be extended to three‐phase flow by considering the gas–liquid–solid three‐phase as gas–slurry two‐phase flow.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".