Development of static mixers for miscible fluids in laminar flow with the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Static mixers with improved performance were developed from CFD simulations in a stepwise approach. The relevant geometric features of simple mixer designs and the corresponding mixing mechanisms—laminar shear, elongational flow, and distributive mixing—were identified first. This information was used to formulate guidelines for the development of new geometries. The solid elements of the static mixer should: (a) provide restrictions to the flow; (b) deflect the flow; (c) be sequentially rotated around the flow direction to provide symmetry; (d) extend from the center of the pipe to the vicinity of the walls to avoid short‐circuiting; and (e) distribute and remix the flow. Based on these guidelines, two improved mixer designs were developed: the DS A–I mixer has a good mixing efficiency and an acceptable pressure drop; the Fins 35° mixer is more efficient and compact, but requires a larger pressure drop. Their performance indicates that their use is possible on industrial applications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".