MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096507327 · doi:10.1002/aic.11967

Chemical‐looping combustion process: Kinetics and mathematical modeling

2010· article· en· W2096507327 on OpenAlexaff
Ion Iliuta, Raul Tahoces, Gregory S. Patience, Sébastien Rifflart, F. Luck

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical looping combustionMethaneMicroreactorChemistryMethanationFluidized bedAnaerobic oxidation of methaneOxygenSupercritical fluidSyngasCombustionPropaneChemical engineeringCatalysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical Looping Combustion technology involves circulating a metal oxide between a fuel zone where methane reacts under anaerobic conditions to produce a concentrated stream of CO 2 and water and an oxygen rich environment where the metal is reoxidized. Although the needs for electrical power generation drive the process to high temperatures, lower temperatures (600–800°C) are sufficient for industrial processes such as refineries. In this paper, we investigate the transient kinetics of NiO carriers in the temperature range of 600 to 900°C in both a fixed bed microreactor (WHSV = 2‐4 g CH 4 /h/g oxygen carrier) and a fluid bed reactor (WHSV = 0.014‐0.14 g CH 4 /h per g oxygen carrier). Complete methane conversion is achieved in the fluid bed for several minutes. In the microreactor, the methane conversion reaches a maximum after an initial induction period of less than 10 s. Both CO 2 and H 2 O yields are highest during this induction period. As the oxygen is consumed, methane conversion drops and both CO and H 2 yields increase, whereas the CO 2 and H 2 O concentrations decrease. The kinetics parameter of the gas–solids reactions (reduction of NiO with CH 4 , H 2 , and CO) together with catalytic reactions (methane reforming, methanation, shift, and gasification) were estimated using experimental data obtained on the fixed bed microreactor. Then, the kinetic expressions were combined with a detailed hydrodynamic model to successfully simulate the comportment of the fluidized bed reactor. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2010

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations133
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicChemical Looping and Thermochemical ProcessesFrench-language works237,207