MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529183125 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22709

Heavy oil upgrading in a hydrodynamic cavitation system: CFD modelling, effect of the presence of hydrogen donor and metal nanoparticles

2016· article· en· W2529183125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Askarian, Ali Vatani, M. Edalat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicUltrasound and Cavitation Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCavitationGasolineHydrogenCrackingChemical engineeringMaterials scienceNanoparticleMetalViscosityCatalysisChemistryPetroleum engineeringMetallurgyOrganic chemistryComposite materialNanotechnologyThermodynamicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cavitation technique with the use of a proper hydrogen donor can be used to upgrade heavy oils, such as atmospheric and vacuum residues and lower the difficulties of their transportation and exploitation. On the other hand, the very high localized temperature experienced in collapsing bubbles may activate the dispersed metal nanoparticles, and therefore the cracking or hydrogenation reactions may be catalyzed through the cavitation process of heavy oils. This paper investigated numerically the formation of a vapour phase in the cavitation chamber of a home‐made laboratory hydrodynamic cavitation setup and also investigated the upgrading of a sample of heavy fuel oil in the presence of gasoline as a hydrogen donor and metal nanoparticles. The results indicated that adding 0.01 L/L gasoline to a 10‐min cavitational cracking process at 80 °C and atmospheric pressure can reduce the viscosity of heavy oil by about 20 %. In addition, the presence of iron nanoparticles can increase the rate of hydrogenation and/or cracking reactions in the heavy oil cavitational upgrading process (HCUP) in the presence of a hydrogen donor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicUltrasound and Cavitation PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207