Characterization of Fluidization Quality in Fluidized Beds of Wet Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring the fluidization quality represents an operating challenge for many processes in which a liquid is sprayed into a gas-fluidized bed, such as fluid coking, fluid catalytic cracking, gas-phase polymerization, agglomeration and drying. Although the presence of liquid will generally have an adverse effect on fluidization, there are often strong incentives in operating with high liquid loadings. For the fluid coking process, for example, operating at lower reactor temperature increases yield and reduces emissions but increases the bed wetness, which may lead to local zones of poor mixing, local defluidization and a reduction in fluidization quality, compromising the reactor performance and stability. The objective of this study is to develop reliable methods to quantify the effects of liquids on fluidized beds.This study examined several methods to evaluate the fluidization quality. Each method was tested in a 3 m tall column, 0.3 m in diameter. Bed wetness was achieved with an atomized spray of various liquids, spanning a wide range of liquid properties.The introduction of liquid in a fluidized bed may result in the formation of wet agglomerates that settle at the bottom of the bed. The liquid may also spread on the particles, increasing their cohesivity and reducing the bed fluidity.Several experimental methods were developed to characterize the effect of liquids on fluidization. Some methods such as the falling ball velocity or the detection of micro-agglomeration from the entrainment of fine particles, are unaffected by agglomerates and detect only the change in bed fluidity. Other methods, such as deaeration or the determination of bubble size from the TDH, are affected by agglomerate formation and changes in bed fluidity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".