Numerical evaluation and improvement efficiency of radial flow moving‐bed reactors for catalytic pyrolysis of light hydrocarbons to low carbon olefins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three‐dimensional (3D) reactor model based on the Eulerian‐Eulerian approach was applied to describe the gas‐solid flow and heat transfer performance in a radial flow moving bed reactor (RFMBR). A six‐lumped kinetic model for the catalytic pyrolysis of C4 hydrocarbon was employed. The heat transfer characteristics and species concentration profiles were investigated in the reactor under various reaction conditions. Effects of operation parameters and reactor structures on the reactor performance were also evaluated and optimized numerically. Simulation results show that there exists a good heat transfer performance between gas and solid phases in the catalyst bed. The temperature profiles and the species yield distributions are different with respect to bed height positions. Moreover, the results indicate that product yield is more sensitive to the reaction temperature than to the dilution rate and the reaction residence time. For the Z‐type centripetal flow RFMBR, an annular tube with an inverted cone structure is helpful to improve the uniformity of flow distribution and increase low‐carbon olefins yields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".