MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006835393 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2014-21954

Reacting Turbulent Flow Simulation to Improve the Mixing Process in an Oil Refinery Incinerator

2014· article· en· W2006835393 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Darbandi, Bagher Abrar, Mohammad Bagher Barezban, Amin Faridvand, G. E. Schneider

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiative Heat Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncinerationCombustionFlue gasTurbulenceEnvironmental scienceWaste managementChemistryMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combustion emission is one of the most important issues in the design of industries. Todays’ strict environmental standards have limited the productions of CO, NOx, SOx, and other hazardous pollutants from the related industries. In this work, we study a typical oil refinery incinerator, which is used to burn waste gases residue produced during bitumen production process. The waste gas mainly includes a mixture including N2, H2O-vapor, and O2 species. Additionally, there are significant amounts of CO species and CxHy droplets in the waste gas composition. The measurements show that the CO emission becomes so crucial in high flow rate of feeding waste gas to the incinerator. Here, we numerically simulate the combustion process in this incinerator by solving the full turbulent reacting flow equations. In this regard, we use the finite-volume method to solve the RANS equations. For turbulence modeling purposes, we use the two-equation k-ε model along with standard wall functions. The non-premixed combustion is simulated by solving the mixture fraction equations for both fuel and waste gas streams. The interaction between turbulence and combustion is properly considered in the current modeling. We use the P1 method to solve the radiation transfer equation in emitting and absorbing medium of combustion gasses. The WSGG model is used to consider the absorption coefficient variation. The set of governing equations are solved using a SIMPLE-based algorithm. The current solutions provide good knowledge about the mixing pattern of flue gas and air-fuel streams in the incinerator. The improper mixing in the incinerator suggests we present a new design to re-design the waste gas inlet to the incinerator. Our simulation shows that the new design would result in substantial improvement in mixing process of these two streams. We find that this new design would effectively reduce the CO ppm at the exit of incinerator’s stack.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiative Heat Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207