MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316406986 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2008-55204

Numerical Modeling of Coal/Biomass Co-Firing

2008· article· en· W2316406986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chaouki Ghenaï, Isam Janajreh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalPulverized coal-fired boilerCharCombustionBiomass (ecology)Lagrangian particle trackingTurbulenceCoal combustion productsEnvironmental scienceChemistryWaste managementMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass co-firing within existing infrastructure of pulverized coal utility boilers is viewed as a practical near-term means of encouraging renewable energy while minimizing capital requirements, maintaining the high efficiency of pulverized coal boilers and reducing the emissions. Numerical investigation of coal/biomass co-firing is presented in this study. Co-combustion of biomass and coal is a complex problem that involves gas and particle phases, along with the effect of the turbulence on the chemical reactions. The transport equations for the continuous phase (gas) and discrete phase (spherical particles) are solved respectively in the Eulerian and Lagrangian frame of reference. The mathematical models used for co-pulverized coal/biomass particles combustion consist of models for turbulent flow (RNG k-ε model); gas phase combustion (two mixture fractions/PDF model: one mixture fraction is used for the fuel (char) and the second for the volatiles); particles dispersion by turbulent flow (stochastic tracking model); coal/biomass particles devolatilization (two competing rates Kobayashi model); heterogeneous char reaction (kinetics/diffusion limited rate model); and radiation (P-1 radiation model). The coal used is a Canadian high sulfur bituminous coal. The coal was blended with 5 to 20% wheat straw (thermal basis) for co-firing. The effect of the percentage of biomass blended with coal on the velocity field, temperature distribution, particles trajectories and pollutant emissions at the exit of the furnace is presented in this paper. One important result is the reduction of NO and CO2 emissions when using co-combustion. This reduction depends on the proportion of biomass (wheat straw) blended with coal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207