MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612676700 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22895

Effect of distributor on fluidized bed hydrodynamics

2017· article· en· W2612676700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fereshteh Rahimpour, Reza Zarghami, Navid Mostoufi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributorBubblePorosityFluidized bedMechanicsMaterials scienceFluidizationWork (physics)Particle (ecology)Composite materialPhysicsThermodynamicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the effect of distributor type on fluidized bed hydrodynamics was studied by taking into account time, frequency, and state space domains. For this purpose, pressure fluctuations were measured in a fluidized bed with 0.15 m diameter and the experiments were carried out for three different types of distributors (perforated plate, bubble cap, and porous plate) at different sizes and various superficial gas velocities and particle sizes. Time domain analysis demonstrated that while the initial bubble size on the bubble cap distributor is greater than that on the perforated plate, the standard deviation of pressure fluctuations is greatest in a bed equipped with the porous plate, followed by the perforated plate and then the bubble cap distributor. Based on the current analysis and in view of the frequency domain analysis, it was found that the contribution of finer structures (small bubbles and clusters) is highest for a porous plate, followed by a bubble cap and then a perforated plate distributor. Also, according to the S‐statistic method, it was concluded that the S‐test is a reliable method for detection of differences between hydrodynamic situations of fluidized beds, while different types of distributors were used.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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