Hydrodynamic Modelling of Internal Loop Airlift Reactor Applying Drift‐Flux Model in Bubbly Flow Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new model for the liquid circulation rates in airlift reactor (ALR) is presented. The model is based on the energy balance for the flow loop (riser, turn riser‐downcomer, downcomer, and turn downcomer‐riser) coupled with a drift flux theory of two‐phase flow gas‐liquid system, considering a bubbly flow regime. The predicted values of the liquid circulation rates by the developed model are compared with experimental results performed in a 22 dm3 internal loop airlift reactor and with the results obtained in the literatures. The proposed model predicted the experimental results very well. Slip velocity relationship based on the drift flux model was proposed; including the gas holdup, bubble size and the liquid physical properties. The predicted slip velocity was similar to that obtained from the literature. The study revealed that appropriate arrangements of internal bioreactor parts can positively influence the liquid circulation velocity at the same energy consumption. The proposed models are useful in the design; scale up and characterization of the internal loop airlift reactors, and provides a direct method of predicting hydrodynamic behaviour in gas‐liquid airlift reactors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".