A comparative computational study of diesel steam reforming in a catalytic plate heat‐exchange reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two‐dimensional steady‐state model of a catalytic plate reactor for diesel steam reforming is developed. Heat is provided indirectly to endothermic reforming sites by flue gas from a SOFC tail‐gas burner. Two experimentally validated kinetic models on diesel reforming on platinum (Pt) catalyst were implemented for a comparative study; the model of Parmar et al., Fuel. 2010;89(6):1212–1220 for a Pt/Al2O3 and the model of Shi et al., International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2009;34(18):7666–7675 for a Pt/Gd‐CeO2 (GDC). The kinetic models were compared for: species concentration, approach to equilibrium, gas hourly space velocity and effectiveness factor. Cocurrent flow arrangement between the reforming and the flue gas channels showed better heat transfer compared to counter‐current flow arrangement. The comparison between the two kinetic models showed that different supports play significant role in the final design of a reactor. The study also determined that initial 20% of the plate reactor has high diffusion limitation suggesting to use graded catalyst to optimize the plate reactor performance. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 63: 1102–1113, 2017
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".