MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905476607 · doi:10.3390/ma11122584

Analysis and Prediction of Corrosion of Refractory Materials by Potassium during Biomass Combustion-Thermodynamic Study

2018· article· en· W2905476607 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zhao, Guishi Cheng, Fei Long, Lu Liu, Changqing Dong, Xiaoqiang Wang, Jin Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCorrosionMaterials scienceSpinelPotassiumMagnesiumMetallurgyMuffle furnaceTube furnaceCombustionChemical engineeringChemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a kind of renewable resource, biomass has been used more and more widely, but the potassium contained in biomass can cause corrosion of the refractory. For a better understanding of corrosion thermodynamic mechanisms, the five components of common refractory materials (magnesium chrome spinel MgO·Cr2O3, magnesium aluminum spinel MgO·Al2O3, Al2O3, MgO, and Cr2O3) with potassium salts (K2CO3, K2SO4, and KCl) under high-temperature were studied by using the FactSageTM 7.0 software. Thermodynamic calculation results indicate that MgO is the best corrosion resistance of the five components of refractory materials. Based on the obtained results, the corrosion experiments in the laboratory were carried out (muffle furnace or high-temperature tube furnace) for corrosion reaction of KCl and MgO. The chemical compositions of the corroded samples were analyzed by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Under laboratory conditions (600–1200 °C), no corrosion products have been observed in the high-temperature corrosion experiments. The result indicates that to prevent the corrosion processes, refractories should contain as much MgO as possible.

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)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207