Evaluation on the effect of conical geometry on flow behaviours in spouted beds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evaluation on the effect of conical section geometry on the gas–solid flow behaviours in conical–cylindrical spouted beds were carried out by three‐dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupling with two‐fluid model (TFM). The simulations were implemented in seven columns with their conical angles ranging from 30° to 180°. The solid flow pattern, particle velocity, voidage, fountain height and the spout diameter were investigated. It was found that unstable spouting would occur when the conical angle is less than 30°. In addition, the conical angle of 105° might be a borderline value for gas–solid flow behaviours in the spout. In this region, increasing conical angle leads to a decrease in fountain height, particle velocity and voidage and an increase in the spout diameter when the conical angle is within 105°, while reverse trends could be found when the conical angle is beyond 105°. The smallest fountain height, particle velocity and voidage and largest spout diameter could be found when the angle is 105°. In spite of these, the particle velocity in the annulus continually increases with increasing conical angle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".