MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011235829 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20398

Modelling of a clinker rotary kiln using operating functions concept

2010· article· en· W2011235829 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kyarash Shahriari, S. Tarasiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre de Recherche Industrielle du Québec
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCement Association of Canada
KeywordsKilnClinker (cement)Rotary kilnRepresentation (politics)Control theory (sociology)Process (computing)State-space representationControl engineeringComputer scienceState spaceState variableEngineeringMechanical engineeringControl (management)MathematicsAlgorithmCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modelling and parameter identification of complex dynamic systems/processes is one of the main challenging problems in control engineering. An example of such a process is clinker rotary kiln (CRK) in cement industry. In the prevailing models independently of which structure is used to describe the kiln's dynamics and the identification algorithm, parameters are assumed to be centralised and constant while the CRK is well known as a distributed parameter system with a strongly varying dynamic through time. In this work, the kiln's dynamic is described in the form of a state‐space representation with three state variables using a system of partial differential equations (PDE). The structure is chosen so that it can easily be embedded in classical state‐space control algorithms. The parameters of the PDE system are called operating functions since their numerical values vary with respect to different operating conditions of the kiln, to their position in the kiln, and through time. A phenomenological approach is also proposed in this paper to identify the operating functions for a given steady‐state operation of the kiln. The model is then used to perform a semi‐dynamic simulation of the process through manipulating main process variables.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicIndustrial Technology and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207