Effect of process parameters on circulating fluidized bed coal gasification using 3D full‐loop CFD simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents a 3D full‐loop computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of a circulating fluidized bed gasifier (CFBG). The simulation results are validated against the experimental data and found to be in good agreement. Thereupon, the effect of the process parameters, ie, temperature, pressure, air/coal (A/C) ratio, and steam/coal (S/C) ratio, on the performance of the gasifier is analyzed. The effect of temperature on the hydrodynamics was found to be small. The CO and H2 increase, whereas the CO2 and H2O decrease with an increase in temperature. While the effect of pressure on the outlet species mole fraction is negligible, the gas and solid axial velocity decrease with an increase in pressure. With an increasing A/C ratio or decreasing S/C ratio, the combustion products (CO2 and H2O) increase, whereas the gasification products (CO and H2) decrease due to the increase in the O2 concentration. In addition, temperature increases with an increase in the A/C ratio or a decrease in the S/C ratio. The feed velocity increases with an increasing A/C or S/C ratio, and, accordingly, the pressure increases and bed height decreases. The CH4 decreases in all of the cases as it is being consumed in gasification as well as combustion reactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".