Numerical investigation of blade shape in static mixing
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".