Quantification of powder holdups in the presence of a cavity with lateral gas–powder injection in a packed bed
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The lateral flow of gas–powder through a packed bed in a cold model is studied to understand the flow and holdup behaviour of powder in the presence of a cavity, nozzle (tuyere) protrusion, and decreasing gas condition, a system used in the ironmaking blast furnace. Experiments conducted in the current study included a two‐dimensional (2D) slot‐type packed bed. A previously published mass balance and elutriation velocity concept formed the basis for accurately quantifying the static and dynamic powder holdups. Experiments conducted under different conditions such as powder size and flux, gas flow rate, and packed particle density and size resulted in quantifying the powder holdups. The pressure drop in both horizontal and vertical directions is studied in all two‐phase flow experiments. The formation of the static holdup with time in the packed bed is studied. The reproducibility of the experiments was confirmed. The static holdup inside the packed bed at various locations along the vertical direction (i.e., height) is also quantified. The static holdup correlation developed based on experimental data resulted in a 95% confidence interval. Static powder holdup increases with a decrease in the superficial gas velocity, an increase in the size of the powder particle, and powder flux. Dynamic holdup also showed a similar trend.
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.
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 it