A comparison of flow development in high density gas‐solids circulating fluidized bed downer and riser reactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison of flow development in high density downer and riser reactors is experimentally investigated using fluid catalytic cracking particles with very high solids circulation rate up to 700 kg/m 2 s for the first time. Results show that both axial and radial flow structures are more uniform in downers compared to riser reactors even at very high density conditions, although the solids distribution becomes less uniform in the high density downer. Solids acceleration is much faster in the downer compared to the riser reactor indicating a shorter length of flow development and residence time, which is beneficial to the chemical reactions requiring short contact time and high product selectivity. Slip velocity in risers and downers is also first compared at high density conditions. The slip velocity in the downer is much smaller than in the riser for the same solids holdup indicating less particle aggregation and better gas‐solids contacting in the downer reactors. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 1172–1183, 2015
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".