Role of Vapor Phase in Oxidation/Combustion Kinetics of High-Pressure Air Injection (HPAI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oxidation reactions and their kinetics are acknowledged to have a major impact on the success of air injection-based improved recovery processes. Vaporization of oil has been reported in the literature as a mechanism associated with kinetics of air injection processes; however, the parameters which control the vapor phase oxidation/combustion behavior have not been included in the studies of oxidation kinetics. In order to characterize the vapor phase oxidation/combustion behavior of light oils in high pressure air injection (HPAI) process, an experimental and a follow up numerical study have been conducted on a high pressure ramped temperature oxidation (HPRTO) reactor on a 37 ° crude oil and a pure hydrocarbon. The results of this study indicate that phase equilibrium between the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon and water components has a definite impact on the "flammability range" for vapor phase combustion at given temperature and pressure conditions. The observations also suggest the potential participation of vapor phase oxygen addition reactions in the supply of triggering energy for spontaneous ignition. Given the importance of vapor phase behavior on the amount and distribution of hydrocarbons available for reaction with oxygen, a comprehensive phase behavior study on the selected light oil was performed. The developed phase behavior model was then used in a hypothetical model to study the behavior of the vapor phase under conditions of HPRTO tests. The significance of this model is its capability to predict the theoretical injected-air/fuel ratio of the vapor phase assuming thermodynamic equilibrium.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".