Heat transfer efficiency in gas–solid fluidized beds with flat and corrugated walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gas–solid fluidized bed reactors exhibit improved heat and mass transfer performance as compared to packed beds. Corrugated walls installed in narrow gas–solid bubbling fluidized bed (CWBFB) enclosures have been observed to decrease minimum bubbling velocity, reduce bubble size, improve gas distribution, provide stable operation, and minimize particle carryover or loss. Thorough analyses of the wall-to-bed heat transfer coefficient in flat- (FWBFB) and corrugated- (CWBFB) wall bubbling fluidized beds have been performed for a variety of operating conditions and geometric parameters. Fast-response self-adhesive heat flux probes and thermocouples were used to simultaneously measure the wall-to-bed heat flux, surface and bed temperatures, and were used to determine the heat transfer coefficient ( HTC ) at various axial and lateral locations. For a given set of parameters, a significant increase in HTC was observed at lower gas flow rates in CWBFB as compared to FWBFB. It was shown that CWBFB inventory required lower U mb (gas flow rate) as compared to FWBFB. Full 3-D transient Euler–Euler CFD simulations using the kinetic theory of granular flow were also performed, which confirmed the experimental results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".