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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Kamran Rahnama, Alex De Visscher

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 CH4 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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207