MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kinetic Model of Steam Gasification of Biomass in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed Reactor

2017· article· en· W2577081336 on OpenAlexafffund
Bijan Hejazi, John R. Grace, Xiaotao Bi, Andrés Mahecha‐Botero

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarbon Management Canada
KeywordsWood gas generatortar (computing)PyrolysisCharBiomass (ecology)Fluidized bedSyngasWaste managementPlug flow reactor modelChemistryChemical engineeringThermodynamicsMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceCoalOrganic chemistryContinuous stirred-tank reactorHydrogenEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple kinetic model is developed for biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) with steam as the fluidizing gas. The biomass pyrolysis is described by a two-step kinetic model in which the primary pyrolysis is modeled by three parallel first-order reactions producing noncondensable gas, tar (bio-oil), and char, and the secondary pyrolysis is modeled by a first-order reaction representing homogeneous thermal cracking of tar. In addition to the yields of pyrolysis products that are often modeled as lumped species, the proportions of major compounds in the pyrolysis gas are predicted based on CHO elemental balances. By incorporating homogeneous and heterogeneous biomass gasification reactions, a seamless kinetic model of a BFB gasifier is developed. An ideal reactor model is used for the BFB gasifier assuming perfectly mixed solids and plug flow of the gas phase. This predictive model is a useful tool to relate biomass gasification product yields and composition to key process operating parameters such as biomass ultimate analysis, reactor temperature, and steam-to-biomass ratio. Predictions of the gasifier model are in good agreement with experimental data from the literature.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.228
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

Citations71
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207