Friction between co‐current upward gas–solid flow and column wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Friction between co‐current upflow gas–solid flow and column wall was investigated by measuring apparent solids concentrations and actual ones in two circulating fluidized bed (CFB) risers with fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) and sand particles, respectively. A new model to predict frictional‐pressure drops between the gas–solid flow in the fully developed zone and the column wall was developed. The results show that the friction between the gas–solid flow and the riser wall causes a significant deviation of the apparent solids concentration from the actual ones, especially under those operating conditions with higher superficial gas velocities and solids‐circulation rates. When superficial gas velocities are greater than 8 m/s, the apparent solids concentrations in the fully developed zone of the risers can be greater than 60% of the actual ones. Particle diameters have different influences on the frictional‐pressure loss under different superficial gas velocities. After the frictional‐pressure drops predicted by the proposed model are deducted from the measured total pressure drops, the predicted actual solids concentrations agree well with the measured actual ones. Copyright © 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".