MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560776679 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22757

Bed diameter effect on the hydrodynamics of gas‐solid fluidized beds via radioactive particle tracking (RPT) technique

2016· article· en· W2560776679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdelsalam Efhaima, Muthanna H. Al‐Dahhan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMissouri University of Science and TechnologyMinistry of Education, Libya
KeywordsFluidized bedMechanicsFluidizationParticle (ecology)Materials scienceKinetic energyTurbulenceMixing (physics)Particle sizeReynolds stressDiffusionReynolds numberTurbulence kinetic energyThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsClassical mechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydrodynamics observed in large‐scale gas‐solid fluidized bed reactors are different from those observed in smaller scale beds. In this study, the effect of bed diameter on the hydrodynamics of gas‐solid fluidized bed reactors has been investigated in two bubbling fluidized beds of 44 cm and 14 cm in diameter using an advanced non‐invasive radioactive particle tracking (RPT) technique. Compressed air at room temperature was used as the gas phase, and the solid was glass beads with a particle size of 210 μm (Geldart‐B) and density of 2.5 g · cm −3 . Particle velocity field, Reynolds stresses, normal stresses, turbulent kinetic energy, and axial and radial eddy diffusivities were measured in two beds at gas velocities of 1.5 , 2 , and 3 . Experimental results showed that the bed scales have a significant effect on some of these hydrodynamic parameters where the magnitude of solids velocity is much higher in the larger bed and the solids mixing and diffusion of particles are increased by increasing the column diameter.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207