A comprehensive review of the application of DEM in the investigation of batch solid mixers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Powder mixing is a vital operation in a wide range of industries, such as food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics. Despite the common use of mixing systems in various industries, often due to the complex nature of mixing systems, the effects of operating and design parameters on the mixers’ performance and final blend are not fully known, and therefore optimal parameters are selected through experience or trial and error. Experimental and numerical techniques have been widely used to analyze mixing systems and to gain a detailed understanding of mixing processes. The limitations associated with experimental techniques, however, have made discrete element method (DEM) a valuable complementary tool to obtain comprehensive particle level information about mixing systems. In the present study, the fundamentals of solid-solid mixing, segregation, and characteristics of different types of batch solid mixers are briefly reviewed. Previously published papers related to the application of DEM in studying mixing quality and assessing the influence of operating and design parameters on the mixing performance of various batch mixing systems are summarized in detail. The challenges with regards to the DEM simulation of mixing systems, the available solutions to address those challenges and our recommendations for future simulations of solid mixing are also presented and discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".