Euler <scp>multiphase‐CFD</scp> simulation on a bubble‐driven gas–liquid–solid fluidized bed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An integrated flow model was developed to simulate the fluidization hydrodynamics in a new bubble‐driven gas–liquid–solid fluidized bed using the computational fluid dynamic (CFD) method. The results showed that axial solids holdup is affected by grid size, bubble diameter, and the interphase drag models used in the simulation. Good agreements with experimental data could be obtained by adopting the following parameters: 5 mm grid, 1.2 mm bubble diameter, the Tomiyama gas–liquid model, the Schiller–Naumann liquid–solid model, and the Gidaspow gas–solid model. At full fluidization state, an internal circulation of particles flowing upward near the wall and downward in the centre is observed, which is in the opposite direction compared with the traditional core‐annular flow structure in a gas–solid fluidized bed. The simulated results are very sensitive to bubble diameters. Using smaller bubble diameters would lead to excessive liquid bed expansions and more solid accumulated at the bottom due to a bigger gas–liquid drag force, while bigger bubble diameters would result in a higher solid bed height caused by a smaller gas–solid drag force. Considering the actual bubble distribution, population balance model (PBM) is employed to characterize the coalescence and break up of bubbles. The calculated bubble diameters grow up from 2–4 mm at the bottom to 5–10 mm at the upper section of the bed, which are comparable to those observed in experiments. The simulation results could provide valuable information for the design and optimization of this new type of fluidized system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".