Study on mixing performance of perforation static mixers applied to high viscosity polymer mixing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To investigate the effect of perforation structure on the mixing performance, three kinds of perforation arrangement were used to modify Kenics static mixer, which were radial arrangement, axial arrangement, and diagonal arrangement. The corresponding modified static mixers were constructed and named PSM‐R, PSM‐A, and PSM‐D. The flow of polymer melts inside them were simulated using Polyflow software. The effects of perforation arrangement, perforation diameter ( d ), and perforation spacing distance ( δ ) on segregation scale ( S ) and pressure drop ( Δp ) were analyzed using single‐factor experiment. The results showed that the perforation structure was helpful to improve the mixing effect. The impact of d on S and Δp was more significant. While increasing d of PSMs, S firstly decreased and then increased. However, Δp monotonously decreased. The impact of δ on S and Δp was smaller. The model of Reynolds number (Re) versus Δp was obtained by fitting and the effect of Re on Δp was significant. In all PSMs, PSM‐A with d of 3 mm and δ of 7 mm has the smallest S , that was reduced by 26.2%, compared to the standard Kenics static mixer.
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".