The Effect of Solids Inventory and Other Factors on the Axial Solids Holdup Profiles in a Twin‐Riser System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The axial profiles of cross‐sectional average solids holdup profiles were studied in two 10 m long, 76 mm i. d. and 203 mm i. d. risers with the solids circulation rate up to 550 kg/m 2 s, superficial gas velocities up to 10.0 m/s, and solids inventory up to 410 kg in the 320 mm i. d. storage tank. The shape of the axial profiles of the cross‐sectional average solids holdup changes with solids fluxes. Under high‐flux conditions, the shapes of the profiles are quite different from those under low‐flux conditions. It is clear that solids holdup increases with the increase of solids fluxes. While the superficial gas velocities have no obvious influence on the shape of the axial profiles of the cross‐sectional average solids holdup under given solids flux for both risers, solids holdup decreases with the increase of superficial gas velocity under all solids inventories. The solids inventory and riser diameter have little influence on the shape of the profile, but the solids holdup is higher with larger bed diameter and/or larger solids inventory. Meanwhile, the solids inventory and riser diameter have important influence on the maximum value of operating solids fluxes of the system. The maximum of solids fluxes increases with the increase of solids inventory, and decreases with the increase of riser diameter.
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.
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 it