A hydrodynamic model of a circulating fluidised bed with low‐density particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a two‐dimensional mathematical model was developed considering the hydrodynamic behaviour of a circulating fluidised bed biomass gasifier (CFBBG), which is also applicable for other low‐density particles. In the modelling, the CFB riser was divided into two regions: a dense region at the bottom and a dilute region at the top of the riser. Kunii and Levenspiel's [Kunii and Levenspiel, Powder Technol. 61, 193‐206 (1990)] model was adopted to express the vertical solids distribution with some other assumptions. Radial distributions of bed voidage were taken into account in the upper zone by using Zhang et al.'s [Zhang et al., Chem. Eng. Sci. 46(12), 3045‐3052 (1991)] correlation. For model validation purposes, a cold model CFB was employed, in which sawdust was transported with air as the fluidising agent. The column is 10 m in height and 280 mm in diameter, and is equipped with pressure transducers to measure axial pressure profile and with a reflective optical fibre probe to measure local solids holdup. A satisfactory agreement between the model predictions and experimental data was found. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".