Free‐surface turbulent flow induced by a Rushton turbine in an unbaffled dish‐bottom stirred tank reactor: LDV measurements and CFD simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laser Doppler velocimetry measurements and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations of turbulent flows with free‐surface vortex in an unbaffled dish‐bottom stirred tank reactor agitated by a Rushton turbine are presented. Measurements of the three mean and fluctuating components of the velocity vector are made in order to characterise the flow field and to provide data for CFD model validation. An Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase flow model coupled with a volume‐of‐fluid method for capturing the gas–liquid interface is applied to determine the vortex shape and to compute the flow field. Turbulence is modelled using the standard k−ε , shear‐stress transport and the differential Reynolds‐stress model with two variants of the pressure‐strain correlation. The predicted mean flow field obtained using all four turbulence models are on the whole similar and generally in good agreement with measurements. However, the Reynolds‐stress models provide somewhat better predictions of the mean axial velocity. The turbulent kinetic energy is well predicted in the flow below the impeller, near the bottom of the tank; whereas it is underpredicted in the region close to the impeller and near the wall by all turbulence models.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it