MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983110637 · doi:10.1021/ie070955r

Comparison of Continuous Blend Time and Residence Time Distribution Models for a Stirred Tank

2007· article· en· W1983110637 on OpenAlexaff
Vesselina Roussinova, Suzanne M. Kresta

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpellerResidence time distributionMixing (physics)Continuous stirred-tank reactorResidence time (fluid dynamics)MechanicsFlow (mathematics)AgitatorMaterials scienceVolumetric flow rateEnvironmental scienceChemistryPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In continuous operation, mixing in a stirred tank is often characterized by the residence time distribution (RTD) curves and the mean residence time ( V / Q ). The RTD is a measure of the history of the fluid element flowing through the reactor rather than a measure of the local mixing conditions inside the vessel. In this study, additional information about local mixing is obtained by taking measurements inside the vessel. The variance of concentration fluctuations from three probes (two located inside the tank and one at the outlet) is used to determine the continuous blend time (θ cnts ). At the limiting condition of a slow feed rate relative to the batch blend time, the CSTR is ideal, but at high flow rates the mixing inside the vessel deviates by up to 50% from the ideal case. Three design guidelines are recommended for designs where ideal mixing conditions are required. First, a line from the inlet to the outlet should pass through the impeller. Second, the feed velocity should decay to the mean impeller suction velocity by the time the feed reaches the impeller for the case of surface feed above a downpumping impeller. Third, the ratio of the mean residence time ( V / Q ) to the batch blend time (θ b ) should be at least 10. Additional guidelines will be needed for tank configurations where the feed(s) and/or outlet(s) are located on the side of the vessel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207