MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304845460 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24718

Monitoring the fluidized bed reactor for polyethylene polymerization based on fibre optic acoustic emission sensor

2022· article· en· W4304845460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farzad Jani, Saeed Houshmand Moayed, Seyyed Reza Adhamdoust, Abdolhannan Sepahi, Seyyed Kamal Afzali

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFluidized bedSIGNAL (programming language)Acoustic emissionPolyethyleneParticle (ecology)Composite materialFluidizationAcousticsWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents applications of a new class of fibre optic acoustic emission (FOAE) sensor to monitor the operation of fluidized bed reactors used in polyethylene production. Specifically, the sensor was implemented to detect undesired, abnormal phenomena related to particle agglomeration, wall sheeting, fine overflow, and variations in the superficial gas velocity. The experiments were executed using a fluidized bed cold model setup for polyethylene powders with average particle sizes of 250, 1000, and 2000 μm. The results demonstrated that the presence of agglomerated particles in the fluidized bed reactor increases the kurtosis of the acoustic emission (AE) signal. Furthermore, the overflow of small particles can be detected by mounting the FOAE sensor below the gas distributor plate and monitoring an increase in the root mean square (RMS) of the AE signal. The AE signal RMS increased with the rising superficial gas velocity. Besides, forming a sheet layer on the reactor wall decreased the AE signal RMS. The proposed sensor's main benefits are its simple design, rapid response to abnormal conditions in the fluidized bed reactor, immunity against electromagnetic noise, high‐temperature resistance, and safety in hazardous areas.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207