Analysis of energy dissipation in stirred suspension polymerisation reactors using computational fluid dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work evaluates the spatial distribution of normalised rates of droplet breakage and droplet coalescence in liquid–liquid dispersions maintained in agitated tanks at operation conditions normally used to perform suspension polymerisation reactions. Particularly, simulations are performed with multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models to represent the flow field in liquid–liquid styrene suspension polymerisation reactors for the first time. CFD tools are used first to compute the spatial distribution of the turbulent energy dissipation rates (ε) inside the reaction vessel; afterwards, normalised rates of droplet breakage and particle coalescence are computed as functions of ε. Surprisingly, multiphase simulations showed that the rates of energy dissipation can be very high near the free vortex surfaces, which has been completely neglected in previous works. The obtained results indicate the existence of extremely large energy dissipation gradients inside the vessel, so that particle breakage occurs primarily in very small regions that surround the impeller and the free vortex surface, while particle coalescence takes place in the liquid bulk. As a consequence, particle breakage should be regarded as an independent source term or a boundary phenomenon. Based on the obtained results, it can be very difficult to justify the use of isotropic assumptions to formulate particle population balances in similar systems, even when multiple compartment models are used to describe the fluid dynamic behaviour of the agitated vessel. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".