A consolidated flow regime map of upward gas fluidization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new flow regime map, resulting from more fundamental studies on the hydrodynamics and new flow regimes, is proposed in response to more practical reclassifications of the existing regimes with the development of upward gas‐solids fluidization systems. The previously reported flow regime maps and flow structures of some widely used fluidized beds are carefully examined. To better reflect the industrial applications, the fast fluidization regime is reclassified as high‐density and low‐density circulating fluidization regimes. A consolidated flow regime map is then proposed where the flow regimes of upward fluidization expand to include new types of fluidized beds such as circulating turbulent fluidized bed and high‐density circulating fluidized bed. The proposed flow regime map consists of six flow regimes: bubbling, turbulent, circulating turbulent, high‐density circulating and low‐density circulating fluidization, and pneumatic transport. The transitions between the regimes are discussed with new correlations proposed for fluid catalytic cracking type particles. Analysis on the dominating phase in the different types of fluidized beds reveals the dynamic changeover from solids phase continuous in conventional low‐velocity batch/“fixed” fluidization operations to gas phase continuous in high‐velocity continuous/“moving” fluidization operations and provides more insights to the transitions between the flow regimes for industrial design and practice.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it