MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347173672 · doi:10.3390/ma9050334

Discrete Element Method Modeling of the Rheological Properties of Coke/Pitch Mixtures

2016· article· en· W2347173672 on OpenAlexafffund
Behzad Majidi, Seyed Mohammad Taghavi, Mario Fafard, Donald Ziegler, Houshang Alamdari

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAlcoa (Canada)Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlcoa
KeywordsCokeMaterials scienceRheologyViscoelasticityRheometerComposite materialDiscrete element methodPetroleum cokeMechanicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rheological properties of pitch and pitch/coke mixtures at temperatures around 150 °C are of great interest for the carbon anode manufacturing process in the aluminum industry. In the present work, a cohesive viscoelastic contact model based on Burger's model is developed using the discrete element method (DEM) on the YADE, the open-source DEM software. A dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) is used to measure the viscoelastic properties of pitch at 150 °C. The experimental data obtained is then used to estimate the Burger's model parameters and calibrate the DEM model. The DSR tests were then simulated by a three-dimensional model. Very good agreement was observed between the experimental data and simulation results. Coke aggregates were modeled by overlapping spheres in the DEM model. Coke/pitch mixtures were numerically created by adding 5, 10, 20, and 30 percent of coke aggregates of the size range of 0.297-0.595 mm (-30 + 50 mesh) to pitch. Adding up to 30% of coke aggregates to pitch can increase its complex shear modulus at 60 Hz from 273 Pa to 1557 Pa. Results also showed that adding coke particles increases both storage and loss moduli, while it does not have a meaningful effect on the phase angle of pitch.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207