MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236114302 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.11.02.006

Numerical Modeling of Biomass and Solid Waste-Based Syngas Fuels Combustion

2015· article· en· W4236114302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chaouki Ghenaï, Tareq Samir, Zaki Salameh, Isam Janajreh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyngasCombustorSyngas to gasoline plusCombustionWaste managementCombustion chamberHeat of combustionMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryEngineeringSteam reformingOrganic chemistryHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combustion of syngas fuels in gas turbine combustor is presented in this paper. The principal objective is to test the performance of the combustion process using non-conventional fuels produced from the gasification of biomass and solid waste. Three dimensional syngas combustion simulations were performed in this study. The mixture fraction/pdf and the P1 radiation models were used to model the non-premixed turbulent combustion. The syngas fuels are derived from the gasification of wood saw dust, wooden pellet and nonrecycled solid waste plastics. The effect of syngas fuel compositions and lower heating values on the combustion process was investigated. The power from the combustor was kept constant at 60 kW for all the syngas fuels tested in this study. The results show a decrease of the peak gas temperature inside the combustor for the syngas fuels compared to conventional fossil gas fuel. The peak gas temperature inside the combustor decreases by 16.1%, 19.8%, and 17.2% respectively for the syngas 1 (derived from plastic waste), syngas 2 (derived from wood saw dust) and syngas 3 (derived from wooden pellets) compared to natural gas fuel. The highest average NO mass fraction at the combustor exit was obtained with syngas 1 (plastic waste) compared to the other syngas fuels due to the high lower heating value. The highest average CO2 mass fraction at the exit of the combustor was obtained with syngas 2 (wood saw dust) compared to the other syngas due to the high amount of CO2 in the syngas fuel (15%).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207