MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064494955 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20134

Experimental and computational study of the bed dynamics of semi‐cylindrical gas–solid fluidized bed

2009· article· en· W2064494955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abanti Sahoo, C.K. Ramesh, Kishore Chandra Biswal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsFluidizationFluidized bedPressure dropMechanicsFluentWork (physics)Expansion ratioFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceCFD-DEMThermodynamicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With computational fluid dynamics (CFD) it is possible to get a detailed view of the flow behaviour of the fluidized beds. A profound and fundamental understanding of bed dynamics such as bed pressure drop, bed expansion ratio, bed fluctuation ratio, and minimum fluidization velocity of homogeneous binary mixtures has been made in a semi‐cylindrical fluidized column for gas–solid systems, resulting in a predictive model for fluidized beds. In the present work attempt has been made to study the effect of different system parameters (viz., size and density of the bed materials and initial static bed height) on the bed dynamics. The correlations for the bed expansion and bed fluctuations have been developed on the basis of dimensional analysis using these system parameters. Computational study has also been carried out using a commercial CFD package Fluent (Fluent, Inc.). A multifluid Eulerian model incorporating the kinetic theory for solid particles was applied in order to simulate the gas–solid flow. CFD simulated bed pressure drop has been compared with the experimental bed pressure drops under different conditions for which the results show good agreements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207