Simulation of bubbling fluidized beds with cohesive particles by incorporating a novel structure‐Based drag model into the two‐fluid model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel structure‐based drag model was proposed to study the hydrodynamics of bubbling fluidized beds (BFBs) operated with ultrafine cohesive particles by considering local heterogeneous flow structures. Firstly, a local structure parameters model capturing the internal flow structures of the studied system was built by balance equations and empirical formulas and the solutions (i.e. local structure parameters) of this model solved by global search algorithm were evaluated in terms of hydrodynamics, energy consumption, and voidage. Then the local structure parameters were employed to derive the structure‐based drag model. Lastly, three drag models (i.e. the structure‐based drag model, Gidaspow model, and Syamlal‐O'Brien model) were investigated and incorporated separately into the two‐fluid model, where the simulation results were also separately compared with available experimental data. The comparison shows that Gidaspow and Syamlal‐O'Brien drag models failed to predict the solid volume fraction profiles. However, the error analysis results of the structure‐based drag model indicate the average absolute relative error of solid volume fraction in the radial direction is 7.04 % and 5.64 % at the height of 0.1 m and 0.2 m respectively, which exhibits promising predictions. Thus, it is feasible to simulate the BFBs with cohesive particles through the combination of the structure‐based drag model with the two‐fluid model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".