Numerical simulation of bubbling fluidization using a local bubble‐structure‐dependent drag model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The meso‐scale flow structure in gas‐solid bubbling fluidization has significant effects on hydrodynamics and interphase heat and mass transfer. However, traditional homogeneous drag models neglect the meso‐scale structure and fail to yield a reasonable prediction of the hydrodynamics in bubbling fluidization. In this study, the gas‐solid system within a grid cell combines three subsystems in order to take the meso‐scale structure into account. Based on this resolution, a local bubble‐structure‐dependent drag model is established. In addition, a homogeneous interphase drag correlation based on direct numerical simulation is coupled with the novel drag model to describe the interphase interaction when the flow structure is homogeneous. Then, the proposed drag model is incorporated into two fluid models to simulate the hydrodynamics in bubbling fluidization with Geldart A and A/B particles. The predicted profiles of the time‐averaged solid volume fraction are compared with experimental data to validate the effectiveness of the novel drag model. The results show that the average relative error of the solid volume fraction is reduced from over 30 to ∼10 % by replacing homogeneous drag models with the novel drag 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 | 0.000 | 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".