Hydrodynamic Insights on Floating Bubbling Fluidized Beds: Dynamic Solutions for Mitigating Gas Maldistribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined bubbling fluidized beds as an alternative to fixed-bed dry scrubbers on ships for reducing pollutants from marine fuels. It focused on overcoming the challenges of gas maldistribution/slug formation, especially under rough sea conditions. This research departed from traditional methods by introducing mobile internal elements into the bed emulsion phase and investigating their effectiveness in various settings, such as vertical, inclined, and rolling beds. A specialized hexapod-driven bubbling fluidized bed was developed to mimic marine operating conditions and to study the behavior of shipboard fluidized beds. Techniques such as digital image analysis (DIA) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) were used to observe bubble dynamics and granular phases, measuring local void fractions and particle velocities. A key finding is the effectiveness of moving internals in preventing bubble coalescence, which is critical for avoiding wall slugs, at different inclinations. Three types of packing were used as mobile internals: Super Raschig, Pall, and square rings. Super Raschig rings, which are characterized by high porosity, were the most efficient in reducing bubble coalescence, making them a preferred choice for offshore fluidized bed applications. This research contributes to the advancement of fluidized bed technology in marine applications and provides insight for future improvements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".