Hydrodynamic Profiles Of Computed Tomography-Scanned Polydispersed Beds Produced By Sieving
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models are a valuable tool for design, optimization, and scaling-up of fixed bed chemical reactors. However, the realistic representation of the catalytic bed structure and the mesh quality of the 3D geometry is of paramount importance to improve the accuracy of CFD models. For the former, computed tomography (CT) is a non-destructive method to map and generate the internal structure of actual fixed bed reactors, formed by catalytic particles produced by sieving, thus directly coupling experiments with CFD models. Due to the local topological complexity of these beds, however, meshing their entire volume would lead to exhaustive computational demands. To reduce these, a suitable sample section should be selected, which respects the bulk and radial porosity of the full bed as accurately as possible. Three distinct sample sections were quantified here for their accuracy, identifying that, due to the highly heterogeneous nature of the full beds, sample selection is case sensitive. A selected section was then meshed, and its hydrodynamic profile resolved, to evaluate its mesh independency. The results highlight the importance of choosing a suitable bed section and mesh size to reduce the computational demands, minimise the computational errors, and achieve the desired level of solution detail.
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.
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 it