An extensive simulation of coal gasification in bubbling fluidized bed: Integration of hydrodynamics into reaction modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simulation of the coal gasification process in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor was performed in order to estimate the performance of the gasifier and assess the optimal operating conditions. A Eulerian‐Eulerian computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation has been developed to predict the hydrodynamic behaviour of the fluidization regime in the bed. This not only provides insight into the hydrodynamics of the bubbling fluidized bed reactor, but also yields hydrodynamics parameters, such as bubble diameter and velocity, solid volume fraction, velocity of gas and solid particles, which can be subsequently used for reaction modelling of the coal gasification process. The predicted hydrodynamic parameters from the CFD simulation are integrated into the kinetics of gasification chemical reactions taking place in the bubble, cloud, and emulsion phases. Instantaneous devolatilization and drying of the feedstock are also considered in the model. The comparison of the predicted results with experimental measurements showed that most of the predicted molar gas compositions in the produced gas were within 15 % of the experimental data. The model was further used to predict the performance of the gasifier at different operating conditions. The results indicated that the temperature range of 800–850 °C, steam‐to‐coal ratios of 0.5–1.5 kg/kg, and air‐to‐coal ratios of 2.0–2.5 kg/kg are suitable conditions for syngas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide, H 2 + CO) production. Depending on the application of the produced syngas, the required H 2 ‐to‐CO ratio can be achieved by controlling the air‐ and steam‐to‐coal ratios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".