MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013401540 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21908

Petroleum coke gasification: A review

2013· review· en· W2013401540 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Narsimha murthy, Ashish N. Sawarkar, Niteen A. Deshmukh, Thomas Mathew, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum cokeProcess engineeringOil refineryCokeRefining (metallurgy)PetroleumWaste managementWood gas generatorCoke strength after reactionEnvironmental scienceEngineeringChemistryMaterials scienceCoalOrganic chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The production of petroleum coke (petcoke) in the refineries is progressively peaking up because of the trend of processing heavy crudes and in turn, a renewed interest in delayed coking process. Therefore, an efficient, economical, and environmentally safe utilisation of petcoke has become imperative in the current petroleum refining scenario. Gasification of petcoke has emerged as one of the attractive options and is gaining increasing attention to convert the petcoke to value‐added products. The process offers the refiners a variety of product slates mainly via synthesis gas route. The products include steam, hydrogen, electricity, chemicals (viz. methanol, ammonia, etc.), liquid fuels via Fischer–Tropsch (F‐T) synthesis and so on. Petcoke has been identified as a potential feedstock for about 15% of the total planned gasification capacity worldwide. In the present communication, the published literature pertaining to petcoke gasification has been extensively analysed and a state‐of‐the‐art review has been written that includes: (1) the importance of petcoke gasification in the present petroleum refining scenario; (2) petcoke gasification reaction mechanism, kinetics, and typical product profile; (3) parametric sensitivity of the operating variables such as temperature and pressure; (4) various gasifiers for petcoke gasification; (5) modelling efforts on different types of gasifiers and (6) future prospects of petcoke gasification. An attempt has been made to get the afore‐mentioned aspects together in a thematic framework so that the information is available at a glance and is expected to be useful as a single point source to the researchers and practicing refiners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations129
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207