Impeller characterization and selection: Balancing efficient hydrodynamics with process mixing requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current literature relies almost exclusively on the power number to compare and characterize impellers. Industrial mixing requirements may rely on conditions far away from the impeller. A protocol is proposed to compare impellers designed for turbulent mixing on the basis of impeller hydrodynamic performance and mixing process objectives. A hydrofoil impeller (KPC), and a mixed‐flow impeller (45° down‐pumping PBT), each at two diameters, were used to test the protocol. Fourteen measures were considered. Five are recommended for full characterization: power number, momentum number, and peak rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy to characterize conditions at the impeller; power at just‐suspended speed to compare the efficiency of solids suspension at the bottom of the tank; and point of air entrainment as a measure of turbulence penetration to the free surface. These five measures provide complete information about mixing performance and good differentiation between the impellers and geometries. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 58: 2573–2588, 2012
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".