Cracking Performance of Gasoline and Diesel Fractions from Catalytic Pyrolysis of Heavy Gas Oil Derived from Canadian Synthetic Crude Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secondary cracking performance of gasoline and diesel fractions from the catalytic pyrolysis of heavy gas oil derived from Canadian synthetic crude oil was investigated. Both diesel and gasoline fractions showed poor cracking performance. The feed conversion of the diesel fraction was below 51 wt %, and the yield of total light olefins was below 11 wt %. Meanwhile, the feed conversion of the gasoline fraction was below 30 wt % and the yield of total light olefins was below 7 wt %. The selectivity of total light olefins at 660 °C was only 22% for both fractions, and the selectivity of dry gas at 660 °C reached 25% for the diesel fraction and 34% for the gasoline fraction. The selectivity of coke at 660 °C reached 26% for the diesel fraction and 16% for the gasoline fraction. The diesel and gasoline fractions could partly crack to lighter components and could partly condense to heavier components. The condensation reaction played an important role in catalytic pyrolysis, and the selectivity of condensation products at 660 °C reached 42% for the cracking of the diesel fraction and 55% for the cracking of the gasoline fraction. The monomolecular cracking is the predominant cracking type, and both the free radical and the carbonium ion mechanisms play an important role under the experimental conditions.
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".