Assessment of scale‐up dimensionless groups methodology of gas‐solid fluidized beds using advanced non‐invasive measurement techniques (CT and RPT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common scale‐up methodology for gas‐solid fluidized bed reactors that has been reported in the literature is based on matching the dimensionless groups. This scale‐up methodology in the literature has been validated by only measuring global hydrodynamic parameters (overall holdups and pressure drop, etc.) without details. Therefore, in this work, we have applied advanced non‐invasive measurement techniques, gamma‐ray computed tomography (CT) and radioactive particle tracking (RPT) techniques, for the first time to evaluate such scale‐up methodology by measuring local hydrodynamic parameters. The results obtained demonstrate that the reported set of the dimensionless groups are not adequate in capturing all the interplay phenomena for achieving similarity in the local hydrodynamic parameters when the proposed set of dimensionless groups has been matched using two sizes of fluidized beds of 0.14 m and 0.44 m and sets of operating conditions. This finding confirms that the local measurements of the hydrodynamic parameters are essential for detailed assessment of scale‐up methodologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".