Behaviour of agglomerates formed by liquid injection in fluidized beds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Formation of agglomerates in fluidized beds can cause operating problems, such as excessive stripper shed fouling, which can lead to premature unit shut down. The focus of this study is to reach a better understanding of how agglomerates move through a fluidized bed to improve the Fluid Cokers and minimize the risk of agglomerates reaching regions where they cause problems. Two experimental methods were used: first, a Gum Arabic binder solution was injected into a two‐dimensional (2D) fluidized bed under conditions that simulate agglomerate formation in Fluid Cokers, and the mass and density of recovered agglomerates were measured; second, a new 2D radioactive particle tracking (RPT) method was developed to track the motion of model agglomerates. The fluidized bed had a steel wall, resulting in significant and non‐uniform radiation absorption. The 2D RPT system was, thus, calibrated by placing the source at 290 locations in the bed, for each fluidization velocity. Since bubble flow patterns greatly affect agglomerate motion and segregation, a tribo‐electric method was used to determine bubble flow distribution in the fluidized bed. The RPT and liquid injection methods gave similar vertical distributions of agglomerates. The main results were that increasing the fluidization velocity reduced segregation, and larger agglomerates were more likely to segregate. There was a strong correlation between the bubbles and agglomerates flow patterns: establishing an asymmetric flow pattern by injecting more fluidization gas in one side of the bed greatly reduced agglomerate segregation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".