Bubble behavior in corrugated‐wall bubbling fluidized beds—Experiments and CFD simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new concept to harness bubble dynamics in bubbling fluidization of Geldart D particles was proposed. Various geometrical declinations of a cold‐prototype corrugated‐wall bubbling fluidized bed were compared at different flow rates (Ug) to conventional flat‐wall fluidized bed using high‐speed digital image analysis. Hydrodynamic studies were carried out to appraise the effect of triangular‐shaped wall corrugation on incipient fluidization, bubble coalescence (size and frequency), bubble rise velocity, and pressure drop. Bubble size and rise velocity in corrugated‐wall beds were appreciably lower, at given Ug/Umb, than in flat‐wall beds with equal flow cross‐sectional areas and initial bed heights. The decrease (increase) in size (frequency) of bubbles during their rise was sustained by their periodic breakups while protruding through the necks between corrugated plates. Euler‐Euler transient full three‐dimensional computational fluid dynamic simulations helped shape an understanding of the impact of corrugation geometry on lowering the minimum bubbling fluidization and improving gas distribution. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2012
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".