MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752460625 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23015

Influence of the swirling jet on pulverized coal gasification performance based on CFD simulation

2017· article· en· W2752460625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yue Zhang, Lei Sang, Li Ping, Zhuangmei Li, Jianjiang Fan, Xiaowen Ran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Department of Ningxia
KeywordsPulverized coal-fired boilerWood gas generatorJet (fluid)TurbulenceCoal gasificationCoalMechanicsSyngasFluentComputational fluid dynamicsHeat transferFlow (mathematics)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceWaste managementChemistryPhysicsEngineeringHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In order to study the influence of the swirling jet of the gasification agent on coal gasification performance, the gasification process of Ningdong pulverized coal inside a GSP gasifier (2000 t/d) was simulated under hot conditions, and the results were compared with actual industrial parameters. A three‐dimensional steady multi‐phase turbulent flow model was established by ANSYS Fluent. The coupling effect of turbulent chemistry was considered by Species Transport model. The realizable k‐ϵ model was used for the gas phase flow. The P‐1 model was implemented for radiation heat transfer. The heterogeneous reactions were irreversible surface reactions and the gas phase reactions were to reach equilibrium. The numerical results showed detailed information of flow field under direct jet and swirling jet. It indicated the swirling jet had a significant influence on coal gasification performance by analyzing the characteristics of flame, species, and gas‐solid distribution. In other words, the swirling jet promotes the reaction efficiency between coal particles and gas phase, increases the residence time of pulverized coal, and temperature and species concentration distribution are more well‐distributed. Furthermore, this work can better predict coal gasification behaviour under different conditions, so as to provide the theoretic support for subsequent sulphur removal and optimal design of the gasifier.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207