Internal annular wall jets: Radial flow in a stirred tank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Similarity solutions are derived for internal annular wall jets and compared with experimentally determined velocity profiles at the wall of a stirred tank with radial flow. The first similarity solution considers a geometry where the thickness of the wall jet is small relative to the diameter of the cylinder and the fluid flows relative to a free stream velocity of zero. In the second solution, the free stream velocity opposes the direction of the jet flow, as is observed in the recirculating flow in a stirred tank. The internal annular wall jet model agrees very well with the flow at the wall of a stirred tank agitated with a Rushton turbine. The free stream counter flow is driven by the wall jet, and a single velocity and length scale define the self‐similar velocity profiles for the flow in the jet and in the recirculating flow. Both the analytical model and experimentally observed expansion rates are linear and the maximum velocity in the jet decays as [U ∝ (z/T)−0.5], where (z/T) is the dimensionless streamwise distance. This decay can be contrasted with the faster decay [U ∝ (z/T)−1] observed in the 3‐D wall jets produced by axial impellers. These results provide a basis for validating computational fluid dynamic simulations in stirred tanks and for estimating the largest length scales of turbulence in the bulk of the tank.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".