Hydrodynamics and reactor performance evaluation of a high flux gas‐solids circulating fluidized bed downer: Experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactor performance of a high flux circulating fluidized bed (CFB) downer is studied under superficial gas velocities of 3–7 m/s with solids circulation rate up to 300 kg/m2s using ozone decomposition reaction. Results show that the reactant conversion in the downer is closely related to the hydrodynamics, with solids holdup being the most influential parameter on ozone decomposition. High degree of conversion is achieved at the downer entrance region due to strong gas‐solids interaction as well as higher solids holdup and reactant concentration. Ozone conversion increases with the increase of solids circulation rate and/or the decrease of superficial gas velocity. Overall conversion in the CFB downer is less than but very close to that in an ideal plug flow reactor indicating a good reactor performance in the downer because of the nearly “ideal” hydrodynamics in downer reactors. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 60: 3412–3423, 2014
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".