The competitive reaction mechanism between oxidation and pyrolysis consumption during low‐rank coal combustion at lean‐oxygen conditions: A quantitative calculation based on thermogravimetric analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of the oxidation‐pyrolysis competitive mechanism during low‐rank coal combustion at lean‐oxygen conditions determines the development of the coalfield fires and the burning loss rate of the coal resource. In the present work, the mass increments of oxygen‐chemisorption were measured and calculated firstly. An abstract shrinking core model was built for distinguishing the oxidation and pyrolysis pathways. On this basis, the consumption rates of oxidation and pyrolysis were respectively calculated with the TGA data obtained under the lean‐oxygen gradient of 21–0 %. The results demonstrate that the oxidation path gradually delays in temperature while the pyrolysis exhibits great temperature stability as the oxygen concentration decreases. Besides, the significant transition of the competitive consumption mechanism exists below 9 % for the oxidation phase before ignition and 5 % for the combustion phase after ignition, respectively. Two temperature indicators of TC1 and TC2 for guiding the optimal fire extinguishing schemes based on the actual oxygen concentrations and temperatures are proposed. Furthermore, 1 % is identified as the limiting oxygen concentration for the development of the coalfield fires where the ignition mechanisms of both the HST and WD coal transform into the homogeneous ignition. The WD lignite, which always maintains the coke state as the burnout mechanism, holds higher reactivity but wider dispersion degrees of combustion compared with the HST sub‐bituminous coal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".