Application of CFD to Analyze the Hydrodynamic Behaviour of a Bioreactor with a Double Impeller
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stirred bioreactors are commonly used unit operations in the pharmaceutical industry. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used in order to analyze the influence of the impeller configuration (Segment–Segment and Segment–Rushton impeller configurations) and the impeller rotational speed (an operational parameter) on the hydrodynamic behaviour and mixing performance of a bioreactor equipped with a double impeller. A relatively close agreement between the power values obtained from the CFD model and those measured experimentally was observed. Various parameters such as velocity profiles, stress generated by impellers due to the turbulence and velocity gradient, flow number, and mixing time were used to compare the CFD simulations. It was observed that the impeller’s RPM could change the intensity of the interaction between the impellers when a Segment–Rushton impeller was used. In general, increasing the RPM led to an increase in total power and the stress acting on the cells and to a shorter mixing time. At a constant RPM, the Segment–Rushton impeller configuration had higher total power and stress acting on cells compared to the Segment–Segment impeller configuration. At lower RPM values (i.e., 50 and 100), the Segment–Segment impeller provided a shorter mixing time. Conversely, at the highest RPM (i.e., 150) the Segment–Rushton impeller had a shorter mixing time compared to the Segment–Segment impeller; this was attributed to the high level of turbulence generated with the former impeller configuration at high RPM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".