Hydrodynamic and Mixing Characteristics of Gas–Solid Flow in a Pulsed Spouted Bed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow behavior and particle motion in a pulsed gas–solid spouted bed was investigated using the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. The computational fluid dynamics-discrete element method (CFD-DEM) was used to evaluate the gas flow field and particle trajectories. The model was four-way coupled to account for fluid–particle, particle–fluid, and particle–particle interactions. A column of 150 × 15 mm cross-section and height 750 mm containing 24500 particles of diameter 2.5 mm was investigated. Gas entered through a 10 × 15 mm slot at the base of the bed. Steady spouting was compared with pulsed spouting at frequencies of 1, 4, and 10 Hz, with superficial velocity amplitude of 0.5 and 1 m/s and a mean superficial spouting velocity of 2 m/s. In addition to comparing the bed pressure drop versus time and its Fourier decomposition, the hydrodynamics in the spout and annulus regions were examined. A new procedure was introduced to assess spouted bed mixing and homogeneity. Flow pulsation was shown to provide stronger upward air momentum, less horizontal gas percolation, better circulation, higher downward particle flux near the sidewalls, better mixing, and greater homogeneity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".