Pumping characterisation of the maxblend impeller for Newtonian and strongly non‐Newtonian fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the pumping mechanisms generated by the Maxblend impeller. Simulation results obtained with the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) are presented for Newtonian fluids (Re = 2–140) and strongly shear‐thinning fluids (Reg = 0.1–50) obeying the Carreau–Yasuda model with a very small power index (n = 0.05). In the Newtonian case, the pumping numbers predicted by the LBM are shown to compare favourably to those obtained with the finite element (FEM) as well as to experimental data based on the decolourisation method. These results indicate a small pumping capacity in the deep laminar regime followed by its sharp increase in the transitional regime, a phenomenon which is explained by examining the flow field simulated with the LBM and the FEM and measured through PIV. In the case of the strongly shear thinning fluids, the impact of the rheology on pumping is investigated. The flow fields and so‐called pumping volumes predicted with the LBM reveal, similarly to the Newtonian case, a change in the structure of the axial and (secondary) radial flow when the Reynolds number is increased. Viscosity contours suggest that this phenomenon is in fact related to the occurrence of zones with very different apparent viscosities, which explains the problematic flow patterns observed experimentally with the PIV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".