Numerical simulation of homogeneous fluidization behaviour of <scp>G</scp> eldart <scp>G</scp> roup <scp>A</scp> particles in gas tapered fluidized beds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A two‐dimensional gas–solid tapered fluidized bed at laboratory‐scale in a homogenous fluidization regime is simulated using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software COMSOL 5.4. The Eulerian–Eulerian (EE) hydrodynamic model is used to predict the minimum fluidization velocity, minimum bubbling velocity, bed height, and solid volume fraction of alumina particles (in Geldart Group A) in the bed with different tapered angles. The effects of static bed heights on the minimum fluidization velocity of tapered beds are investigated. The highest minimum fluidization velocity is 6 mm/s with a static height of 11 mm and a tapered angle of 12°. The bed height is increased with increasing superficial air velocity. At a given air velocity, the minimum bed height is obtained at a 12° tapered angle. A decrease in solid volume fraction is also observed upon an increase in the superficial air velocity. The CFD results show an almost uniform solid concentration over the bed height. The homogenous or non‐bubbling regime appears in a wider range of critical velocity at a 12° tapered angle. In the case of a 0° tapered angle, the results of this study and the discrete element method computational fluid dynamics (DEM‐CFD) simulation exhibit a good match. In the case of 6° and 12° tapered angles, the proposed model leads to good predictions based on the theory of homogenous fluidization of Geldart Group A. This research introduces a rapid and cost‐effective approach for the better design and operation of a tapered fluidized bed in large scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".