MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102111394 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20151

Simulation of coal gasification in a pressurized spout‐fluid bed gasifier

2009· article· en· W2102111394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qianjun Li, Zhang Mingyao, Wenqi Zhong, Xiaofang Wang, Rui Xiao, Baosheng Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWood gas generatorFluidizationCoalCoal gasificationHeat transferMass transferPyrolysisWaste managementMaterials scienceFluidized bedNuclear engineeringMechanicsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on an Eulerian–Eulerian method, a three‐dimensional kinetic model involving mass transfer, momentum transfer, heat transfer, and chemical reaction is developed to simulate the process of coal gasification in a 2 MW th pressurized spout‐fluid bed of 450 mm in diameter with bed pressure up to 0.5 MPa. The effects of operating pressure and bed temperature on coal gasification are investigated. The high operating pressure is beneficial to coal gasification due to the fact that the fluidization in the reactor becomes better. On one hand, a higher bed temperature can accelerate the rate of reaction. On the other hand, more air will be taken in the gasifier to keep the higher bed temperature which will consume part of combustible gases produced by coal pyrolysis or gasification. Experimental verification was carried out in a 2 MW th thermal input pressurized spout‐fluid bed under the same operating condition. The comparison of calculation results with experimental results shows that most of the calculation errors are within the range of 15%.

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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207