MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293115976 · doi:10.11159/htff22.188

Eulerian Approach to CFD Analysis of a Bubble Column Reactor – A Review

2022· review· en· W4293115976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed W. Abdulrahman, Nibras Nassar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsBubbleEulerian pathColumn (typography)Computer scienceMechanicsMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bubble Column Reactors (BCR) / Slurry Bubble Column Reactors (SBCR) have many advantageous characteristics as such they are used in numerous industrial applications.This work reviews the Eulerian Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach when analysing BCR/ SBCRs.Several studies have been reviewed which vary parameters such as the reactor design, superficial gas velocity, pressure, CFD models (drag, turbulence), particle concentration, and phase material to investigate their effects on the reactor's performance in terms of hydrodynamics or heat transfer.This review indicates that using a Eulerian CFD model can accurately predict the BCR/SBCR's performance.Key findings include that increasing the superficial gas velocity, column pressure, and gas phase density increases the gas holdup.Gas holdup is unevenly distributed in the BCR where most of the gas holdup is in the centre of the column.Increasing solid particles decreases the bubble breakup rate and gas holdup.Furthermore, it was concluded that increasing the superficial gas velocity increases the average slurry temperature and volumetric heat transfer.However, decreasing the column height increases the slurry temperature and volumetric heat transfer.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207