Simulation of pellet model with multicomponent mass diffusion closure using least squares spectral element solution method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mass‐ and mole‐based pellet models have been solved using least‐squares formulation to describe the evolution of species composition, pressure, velocity, total concentration and mass diffusion fluxes in porous pellets for the steam methane reforming (SMR) process. The objective of this work has been to compare the mass‐ and mole‐based diffusion flux models, convection and fluid velocity for the SMR process using the least‐squares spectral element method (LS‐SEM). The diffusion–reaction problems are computationally intensive, requiring efficient numerical methods for dealing with them. This paper presents formulation and algorithm of LS‐SEM for solving multicomponent mass diffusion pellet models. The mass diffusion flux is described according to the rigorous Maxwell Stefan model. This flux may be defined either with molar‐ or mass‐averaged velocities. The effectiveness factors have been calculated for the SMR process and compared with the literature data. The model evaluations revealed that: ‐ The least‐squares method is well‐suited for solving the multicomponent mass diffusion pellet models for the SMR process, achieving exponential convergence. ‐ Molar‐ and mass‐based pellet models do not give fully identical results for the SMR process, since the pellet model is not completely consistent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".