MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091494923 · doi:10.3844/ajeassp.2013.327.339

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A LOW-DENSITY BIOMASS FEEDING SYSTEM FOR FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIERS

2013· article· en· W2091494923 on OpenAlexafffund
Ghaly

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWood gas generatorPipingWaste managementEnvironmental scienceWater coolingBiomass (ecology)InletStrawScrapEngineeringCoalEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For efficient operation of a biomass gasifier, the biomass material must be fed continuously to the system. A feeding system for chopped straw and rice husk was designed, constructed and evaluated. It consisted of: A frame, a hopper, an auger, two agitators, a drive system and a power unit. Initial testing showed that wheat straw and rice husk, being highly cohesive materials, created tunnel flow and piping conditions. This occurs when the pressure above an impending dome of material is too small resulting in the creation of a stable dome and blockage of the discharge. In order to achieve good flow conditions, it was concluded that the hopper must operate under "mass outflow" and the material should not be allowed to build up along the flow channels. These objectives were achieved by the proper redesign of the hopper configuration, the installation of agitators in the hopper and use of an auger in the outlet duct leading into the gasifier. However, as the augur was used to move the biomass material from hopper to the gasifier, it was observed that hot gases leaked from the gasifier into the hopper and heat was also transmitted from the gasifier to the hopper though the augur shaft by conduction resulting in burning of biomass material in the hopper. Therefore, the augur shaft was fitted with copper tubing to serve as a water cooling system and the tapered section of the augur was fitted with a stainless steel section with water inlet and outlet to serve as a secondary cooling system. After, the system has been successfully modified for feeding wheat straw and rice husk, it was tested to determine the optimum operating conditions. Mass flow tests were performed with four sprocket combinations and four auger speeds. Increasing the auger speed and/or the lower agitator speed increased the straw output of the feeding system. However, increases in the upper agitator speed resulted in reduced mass flow of the material due to the mixing effect created by the upper agitator which reduced the down movement of the straw toward the auger housing. The sprocket B combination (30 tooth sprocket on the lower agitator shaft and a 50 tooth sprocket on the upper agitator shaft with a lower agitator speed of 1/3 auger speed and an upper agitator speed of 1/15 auger speed) gave the greatest straw output. The feed rate at this combination ranged from 0.74 to 6.76 kg/minute (12.58 to 114.92 GJ/minute). By adjusting the dial controller, the output could be easily matched with the gasifier's required straw input.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207