MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147558873 · doi:10.1115/1.2424958

Combustion and Emission Performance of a Hog Fuel Fluidized Bed Boiler With Addition of Tire Derived Fuel

2006· article· en· W2147558873 on OpenAlexaff
Wenli Duo, Ibrahim Karidio, Larry A. Cross, Bob Ericksen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsCatalyst Paper (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionBoiler (water heating)Waste managementNOxEnvironmental scienceFly ashFuel efficiencyPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineeringAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salt-laden hog fuel (wood waste) is burnt in a fluidized bed boiler converted from a traveling grate boiler to generate steam for a specialty paper mill. The converted boiler has a design capacity of 156t∕h of steam from hog and actual generation has varied from 76% to 107% of the design capacity. The conversion has resulted in more stable operation, more complete combustion, less ash production, reduced boiler maintenance, and lower fossil fuel consumption. Tire derived fuel (TDF) is used as a supplementary fuel. With an energy content of 31GJ∕t for TDF, as compared to 8GJ∕t for wet hog, addition of 2%–5% TDF by weight increased the bed temperature by an average of 55°C, stabilized and improved the combustion of low quality hog and high moisture content sludge. The impact of TDF addition was studied in detail. Stack emissions were tested and bottom and flyash samples were analyzed. Although TDF contains an average of 1.6% zinc and 9.2% steel wire by weight, addition of TDF did not affect total particulate emissions from the boiler. SO2 emissions were increased due to the high sulfur content of TDF (1.4%), while NOx emissions were reduced. A good correlation was obtained from the test results, showing that the addition of TDF resulted in a reduction in both the total formation and the stack emissions of dioxins and furans.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologySame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207