Numerical investigation of the hydrodynamics of split‐and‐recombination and multilamination microreactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrodynamics and residence time distribution (RTD) of two microreactors based on the split‐and‐recombination (SAR), and multilamination mixing mechanisms, respectively were investigated. It was found that the design of the distribution manifolds of the SAR mechanism produces an unbalanced flow distribution. For feeding ratios different than one, bypassing and recirculation occur within the SAR manifolds. For equal flow rates the SAR flow behavior can be accurately described by the pure convection model. The manifold used in the multilamination microreactor achieves a homogeneous distribution of flow and its interdigital mixing structure generates an alternated pattern of fluid layers which is maintained for Re < 140. After this point the ordered arrangement is broken and two large segregated zones are formed. In the absence of molecular diffusion both microreactors reach limiting values of scale and intensity of segregation that were found to be independent of the energy applied to the system. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 59: 988–1001, 2013
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".