MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325891976 · doi:10.9734/air/2015/8240

Effect of Distributor Plate Configuration on Pressure Drop in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed Reactor

2014· article· en· W2325891976 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ghaly, A. Ergüdenler, V. Ramakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributorPressure dropFluidized bedFluidizationMaterials scienceMechanicsDrop (telecommunication)Nuclear engineeringWaste managementMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To study the effects of distributor plate shape and conical angle on the pressure drop were studied in a pilot scale fluidized bed system. Methodology: Five distributor plates (flat, concave with 5, concave with 10, convex with 5 and convex with 10) were used in the study. The system was tested at two levels of sand particle size (a fine sand of 198 m and coarse sand of 536 m), various bed heights (0.5 D, 1.0 D, 1.5 D and 2.0 Dcm) and various fluidization velocities (1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 U mf ). Results: The pressure drop was affected by the shape and the conical angle of distributor plate, sand particle size and bed height. Less than theoretical values of the pressure drop were observed with the 10 concave distributor plate at lower fluidizing gas velocities for all bed heights. A decrease in the angle of convex and an increase in the angle of concave resulted in a decreased pressure drop. Greater values of pressure drop were obtained with larger sand particles than those obtained with small sand particles at all fluidizing velocities and bed heights. For all distributor

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in ResearchSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207