MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401843570 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.4c01758

Critical Review of Gas–Liquid Mixing Using Gas-Inducing Impellers: Modeling, CFD Simulation, and ANN Applications

2024· article· en· W4401843570 on OpenAlexafffund
Ehsan Zamani Abyaneh, Farhad Ein‐Mozaffari, Ali Lohi

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImpellerComputational fluid dynamicsContext (archaeology)Mixing (physics)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringProcess engineeringMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of gas-inducing reactors (GIRs) and identifies areas for further investigation. It examines the gas induction systems available in the literature, categorizing them into conventional types of 11, 12, and 22, and highlights the importance of focusing on double-impeller systems as a practical solution for large-scale GIRs. The work includes a thorough review of applied models and correlations for estimating critical impeller speed ( N C ), induced gas flow rate ( Q G ), influence of fluid’s physical properties, power consumption ( P G ), gas holdup (ε G ), and gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient ( k L a ). Furthermore, it discusses the necessity for further research in understanding non-Newtonian flow behaviors, the impact of fluid physical properties across a broad range of fluids, the interdependence of variables, the identification of key parameters, and stability analysis in large-scale reactors. Additionally, the manuscript addresses the challenges and limitations in experimental techniques, equipment utilization, scale-up processes, and the application of modeling tools such as artificial neural networks (ANN) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in the context of gas induction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207