MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular-Level Modeling and Simulation of Vacuum Gas Oil Hydrocracking

2015· article· en· W2509730065 on OpenAlexafffund
Anton Alvarez‐Majmutov, Jinwen Chen, Rafał Gieleciak

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHydrocarbonChemistryHydrocarbon mixturesCrackingVacuum distillationRefineryProduct distributionProcess engineeringOrganic chemistryDistillationCatalysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancing the capabilities of refinery process models requires fundamental knowledge of hydrocarbon composition and processing behavior at the molecular level. In common practice, however, the main obstacle to reaching such a level of understanding is the difficulty to characterize the molecular composition of petroleum and its derived products with current analytical methods. A different approach is through the use of hydrocarbon composition modeling techniques to derive the molecular make up of petroleum fractions, thus enabling the development of molecular reaction models. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the application of this concept to model and simulate the vacuum gas oil hydrocracking process at the molecular level. At first the analytical characterization of the feed sample is transformed into a computational mixture of hydrocarbon molecules that is consistent with the chemistry of the actual oil sample. This molecular representation is then used as input to model the chemical transformations occurring in the hydrocracking reactor. The reaction network is organized in terms of reaction families, and reactivity parameters are modeled with quantitative structure/reactivity correlations. The developed model is tuned using experimental data obtained from a bench-scale hydrocracking reactor. Simulations showed that the model reproduces the product distribution by boiling range and hydrocarbon type, relevant product properties (e.g., API gravity), and process parameters such as hydrogen consumption and hydrocarbon vaporization, over a wide range of operating 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 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207