Demarcation of a new circulating turbulent fluidization regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transient flow behaviors in a novel circulating‐turbulent fluidized bed (C‐TFB) were investigated by a multifunctional optical fiber probe, that is capable of simultaneously measuring instantaneous local solids‐volume concentration, velocity and flux in gas‐solid two‐phase suspensions. Microflow behavior distinctions between the gas‐solid suspensions in a turbulent fluidized bed (TFB), conventional circulating fluidized bed (CFB), the bottom region of high‐density circulating fluidized bed (HDCFB), and the newly designed C‐TFB were also intensively studied. The experimental results show that particle‐particle interactions (collisions) dominate the motion of particles in the C‐TFB and TFB, totally different from the interaction mechanism between the gas and solid phases in the conventional CFB and the HDCFB, where the movements of particles are mainly controlled by the gas‐particle interactions (drag forces). In addition, turbulence intensity and frequency in the C‐TFB are significantly greater than those in the TFB at the same superficial gas velocity. As a result, the circulating‐turbulent fluidization is identified as a new flow regime, independent of turbulent fluidization, fast fluidization and dense suspension upflow. The gas‐solid flow in the C‐TFB has its inherent hydrodynamic characteristics, different from those in TFB, CFB and HDCFB reactors. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2009
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".