MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344918732 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22522

Simplified flare combustion model for flare plume rise calculations

2016· article· en· W2344918732 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeFlareEmissivityCombustionEnvironmental scienceDownwashMeteorologyDispersion (optics)Atmospheric sciencesMechanicsAtmospheric dispersion modelingPhysicsAir pollutionChemistryAstrophysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dispersion of plumes released from stacks depends on wind speed, plume emission rate, stack height, and other meteorological and stack variables. Plume rise is an important aspect of plume dispersion because it increases the apparent release height, which leads to lower ground‐level concentrations. Plume rise linked with flare combustion has received only minimal attention in the literature to date, despite its importance. This study develops a numerical model of plume rise with flare combustion based on material, heat, mass, and momentum balances. The basis of the model is a numerical plume rise model used in CALPUFF to model plume rise of large buoyant area sources, and is also used in PRIME (plume rise model enhancements), which models building downwash. The proposed model considers the reaction kinetics. The competition between CH 4 and CO combustion causes a modification of the temperature profile of up to 3 % in comparison with an instantaneous reaction model. Moreover, emissivity, which plays an important role in the heat conservation equations but which was only parameterized in an earlier work, is calculated more directly to increase the accuracy of the model. It was found that soot is the main contributor to flame emissivity. Finally, the air dispersion model CALPUFF was run according to the proposed flare model and an empirical flare model by Beychok to compare results of the models. This new flare method is sufficiently simple to be embedded into air dispersion modelling software such as CALPUFF.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.184 · 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