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 H 2 increase, whereas the CO 2 and H 2 O 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 (CO 2 and H 2 O) increase, whereas the gasification products (CO and H 2 ) decrease due to the increase in the O 2 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 CH 4 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 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".