MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Mathematical Model for Carbothermic Reduction of Dust-Carbon Composite Agglomerates

2013· article· en· W1988857006 on OpenAlexaff
Yuki Kuwauchi, Mansoor Barati

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgglomerateComposite numberReduction (mathematics)Carbon fibersMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite materialMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recycling iron–bearing dust from steel mills has gained a considerable attention in the past two decades to recover the valuable metals in dust while improving the sustainability of steel production. As a method for extracting the metals from dust, the reduction of dust–carbon composite agglomerates using a rotary hearth furnace (RHF) has been practiced in the steel industry. The use of low–grade carbonaceous reductants, such as low–rank coal and waste plastic, is of steelmakers’ interest to further enhance the waste recycling using the RHF process. However, applying these materials as reductants has proven to be a challenging task since the impact of the released volatile gas from such reductants on reduction reactions is not predictable. In addition, the reduction kinetics of dust pellet in RHF is more complicated than the reaction behaviour of sintered ore in blast furnace due to the higher furnace temperature, faster reduction and rapid gas evolution inside the agglomerate. To predict the reaction behaviour of the dust–carbon composite in RHF, a mathematical model was developed. The model takes into consideration heat and mass transfer as well as the reduction reaction of iron and zinc oxides, gasification of carbon and release of volatiles. The simulated behaviour of a dust pellet by the proposed model provides beneficial information to promote recycling an expanded range of waste materials in the RHF process. The modelling approach and calculation results are discussed in the present paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicIron and Steelmaking ProcessesFrench-language works237,207