Colloid filtration theories for fibrous bed coalescer design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibrous bed coalescers are used in a wide range of applications, from food and soap processing to crude oil and fuel processing, yet there is no formal methodology to size coalescers. The closest form of a design equation comes from Lee and Liu’s (LL) 1980 colloid filtration theory, which considers inertial impaction as a method of drop capture. This work compares the LL framework to two additional colloid filtration theories. The first one is Rajagopalan and Tien’s (RT) 1976 theory, which considers inertial impaction and the detachment of a captured drop due to shear conditions. The second theory is a modified form of the RT framework that includes the coalescence probability (RTCP) between captured drops and drops in the incoming flow. For pad coalescers, the LL, RT, and RTCP theories were compared in terms of the predicted bed length for various combinations of superficial velocities (q) and bed porosities (ε_o). In the typical design range for “q” (0.6 - 3 cm/s), the three frameworks produce similar packed bed lengths. However, only RTCP can be used for high and low “q” values. The RTCP framework was also the only one capable of reproducing the recommended industrial practice for the design of cartridge coalescers. The RTCP framework was also used in a case study for the dewatering of diluted bitumen froth. A fibrous bed coalescer was sized to remove emulsified water from diluted bitumen extracted from the oil sands in the Canadian Athabasca region. The manufacturer-recommended “q” range of 0.6 - 3 cm/s was the most reasonable because higher “q” values produced larger pressure drops in the coalescer and a substantial increase in the size of the gravity separator.
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".