Effect of vertical internals on the pressure drop in a gas‐solid fluidized bed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, the pressure drop at the wall and the radial profiles of pressure drop along the bed height have been measured using a differential pressure transducer and pressure probe‐differential pressure transducer in a gas‐solid fluidized bed with a 0.14 m inside diameter. Two types of circular arrangements of intense vertical internals (0.0254 and 0.0127 m diameter), two kinds of solid particles of Geldart B type (glass beads and aluminum oxide), and four selected superficial gas velocities in terms of u/umf have been used to study the impact of these different designs, as well as the physical and operating variables on the pressure drop measured at the wall of the bed and the radial pressure drop inside the fluidized bed. It has been experimentally demonstrated that the 0.0254 m internals can reduce the pressure drop at the wall and the radial pressure drop inside the bed by about 10 % when compared to without internals, and this result holds true for both kinds of solids used. However, the implementation of 0.0127 m internals inside the gas‐solid fluidized bed leads to a decrease in the pressure drop and radial pressure drop in the case of glass bead solid particles and an increase in the pressure drop in the case of aluminum oxide solid particles. The experimental results in the form of relevant dimensionless groups have been correlated using the statistical analysis software of JMP 12, due to the big difference between the experimental results of this work and the predicted values from the available correlations in the literature. The new correlation has been developed with a mean relative deviation value of 1.08 % between the experimental and predicted values.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".