Numerical investigation of blade shape in static mixing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mixing performance of the KMX and SMX static mixers have been compared using 3D high‐resolution computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Although these mixers have a similar design composed of layers of blades, their blade shape is different: curved for the KMX and flat for the SMX. The flow of a Newtonian fluid in steady laminar regime has been considered as the benchmark of the study. The simulation was first validated by assessing the pressure drop vs. the number of mixer elements and the results were found to be in good agreement with experimental data. To evaluate the mixing quality, cross‐section stream function, extensional efficiency, mean shear rate, residence time, intensity of segregation, stretching, and Lyapunov exponent have been selected. Analysis of the flow pattern and mixing parameters shows differences between the mixers and it appears that the curved blade is more efficient than the flat blade design at the expense of a slightly higher pressure drop. In practice, the KMX mixer should provide a higher mixing rate at high viscosity ratio than the SMX mixer. © 2004 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 51: 44–58, 2005
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it