Computational fluid dynamic simulations of regular bubble patterns in pulsed fluidized beds using a two‐fluid model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This simulation study explores the two‐fluid model's (TFM) capability to reproduce the alternating bubble patterns in a sinusoidal pulsed fluidized bed (PFB). Simulations were performed with frictional limits ranging between 0.58–0.62 with the inlet gas frequency being varied in the range of 3–6 Hz. The preliminary investigations showed that the Johnson and Jackson frictional model with a frictional limit of 0.61 yields a regular bubble pattern. The inference of this regular bubble pattern was based on the discrete Fourier analysis of the temporal pressure signals obtained at different spatial locations inside the PFB. Although the one‐dimensional temporal pressure signals characterized a regular bubble pattern behaviour, the staggered bubbles visually observed were highly unstable. Moreover, in‐depth insights into the PFB's regime classification showed that the predicted regular bubble patterns are susceptible to uncertainties due to the inherent mathematical limitations of the frictional closures of the TFM. Besides, the combinations of the frictional models/ limits in the TFM simulations could not predict the high stability and intermediate stability regimes of PFB. The present investigations helped identify the limitations of frictional closure models of TFM in predicting the regular bubble patterns and the regime classification for the PFB. It also expresses the need to develop better strategies to model the frictional closure of TFM to accurately account for the ever‐evolving dense and dilute particle regions of a PFB.
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".