MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058601018 · doi:10.1115/detc2008-49986

Optimization of a Hydraulic Mixing Nozzle

2008· article· en· W2058601018 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Jacob Engelbrecht, Douglas S. McCorkle, Daniel Ashlock, Kenneth M. Bryden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleComputational fluid dynamicsMixing (physics)Jet (fluid)Mechanical engineeringMechanicsDesign toolOptimal designComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In industry, mixing tanks are used to homogenize two or more different products that have been combined. This work investigates the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to seek an enhanced design for a hydraulic mixing nozzle. This paper outlines a method for a numerical specification of a nozzle design and generation of a CFD model to analyze it. Characteristics that influence jet distance and trajectory, such as horn size, shape, and entrainment area, are reviewed. The relative importance of each of these traits and which traits have the most significant impact on the quality of a given design are explored. Suggestions for nozzle design are summarized. This information allows the most limiting factors of a tank mixing design to be mitigated to the largest extent possible. Currently industry uses magnification ratio (the ratio of flow out of the nozzle divided by the forced flow through the nozzle jet) for mixing tank nozzle design. This paper illustrates that using magnification ratio or velocity alone does not result in an optimized design. These factors must be weighted to obtain a design that balances these factors to mix the geometry of fluid volume. Additionally, this work shows that nozzle placement is perhaps more significant than nozzle design for optimum mixing with minimum power consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207