Experimental and numerical investigation of the scale‐up criterion of solid‐viscous fluid mixing in a stirred tank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The scale‐up of mixing processes is crucial for process engineering and power optimization in the chemical industry. Scale‐up of fluid mixing in stirred systems becomes a challenging task, especially when using non‐Newtonian fluids. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been applied to simulate the solid‐liquid mixing of silica particles with non‐Newtonian fluids of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) solutions (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0). The model is validated by experimental measurement of power consumption and solid‐phase concentration. The scale‐up criterion based on geometric similarity and constant tip speed is proved to be valid for non‐Newtonian systems by comparing kinematic similarity. The transformation of flow regime is discussed based on modified Reynolds number and local Reynolds number. The scale‐up criterion performs well in terms of the scale effect of power consumption, especially for the CMC2.0 solution system. This study is instructive for the scale‐up of non‐Newtonian fluid mixing in stirred tanks.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".