A comprehensive review of the application of DEM in the investigation of batch solid mixers
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 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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