Hydrocracking of Fischer‐Tropsch wax and its mixtures with heavy vacuum gas oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Fischer‐Tropsch (F‐T) wax and bitumen‐derived hydrotreated heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO) blends were co‐hydrocracked over a commercial catalyst in an autoclave reactor at a temperature of 360 °C and an initial hydrogen pressure of 4.2 MPa. 100 % F‐T wax and 100 % HVGO were hydrocracked under similar operating conditions as the reference feedstocks. The results revealed that the conversion of 360 °C+ materials decreased from 0.79 g/g (79 mass%) to 0.71 g/g (71 mass%) when the F‐T wax/HVGO blending ratio increased from 0/100 to 25/75 (g/g), then increased dramatically from 0.71 g/g (71 mass%) to almost 1 g/g (100 mass%) when the F‐T wax/HVGO blending ratio continued to increase to 100/0 (g/g). As the F‐T wax/HVGO blending ratio in the feed increased, the contents of cycloparaffins and aromatics decreased, whereas those of iso ‐paraffins and n ‐paraffins in the products increased. The research octane number and the motor octane number of the naphtha fraction also increased from 76 to 95 and from 76 to 82 when the F‐T wax/HVGO blending ratio increased from 0/100 to 100/0 (g/g), respectively. The product obtained from pure F‐T wax, which contained 0.8 g/g (80 mass%) of C 5 –C 11 iso ‐paraffins, was tested for diluent compatibility with Athabasca bitumen. The P‐value at 0.3 L/L (30 vol%) dilution was 2.11, close to that of 2.17 for natural gas condensate. Meanwhile, both the API gravity and viscosity met pipeline specifications, which indicates that the product hydrocracked from F‐T wax is a suitable diluent for bitumen.
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".