Artificial Neural Network and Neuro-Fuzzy Methodology for Phase Distribution Modeling of a Liquid–Solid Circulating Fluidized Bed Riser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) modeling techniques are applied to study the radial and axial solids holdup distributions in a liquid–solid circulating fluidized bed (LSCFB) system. The modeling process is based on the experiments that were conducted using 500 μm size glass beads as solid phase. The radial nonuniformity of the solids holdup is observed under different superficial liquid velocities at superficial solids velocity of 0.95 cm/s and auxiliary liquid velocity of 1.4 cm/s at four axial locations ( H = 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.8 m above the distributor). The effects of different operating parameters such as auxiliary and primary liquid velocities and superficial solids velocity on radial phase distribution in different axial positions of the riser are considered in the model development and analysis. The adequacy of the developed models is investigated by comparing the model predicted and experimental solids holdup data obtained from the pilot scale LSCFB reactor. Radial nonuniformity of the solids holdup is observed under different superficial liquid velocities at superficial solids velocity of 0.95 cm/s and auxiliary liquid velocities of 1.4 cm/s at four axial locations ( H = 1, 2, 3, and 3.8 m above the distributor). The cross-sectional average solids holdup in axial directions is compared to the output of the two models. The model outputs show good agreements with the experimental data and reasonable trends of phase distributions. The correlation coefficient values of the predicted output and the experimental data are 0.95 and 0.96 for ANFIS and ANN models, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".