Effect of phase maldistribution on performance of two‐phase catalytic monolith reactor and its comparison with trickle bed reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Monolith reactors are widely considered as an alternative to the conventional trickle bed reactor. For the commercial deployment of monolith reactors, comparative performance studies are required. Reliable comparative and performance studies require a detailed understanding of the effect of phase distribution/maldistribution on the performance studies. In this work, performance and comparative studies were carried out in a relatively large column that was 4.8 cm in diameter. Experiments were performed in the same conditions that were used in studies for which phase distribution data were available. Since the properties of the catalyst used were different in both the reactors, the apparent kinetics were studied to facilitate the comparison. The hydrogenation of alpha‐methyl styrene (AMS) was used as a test reaction. From the performance studies, it was found that the effect of maldistribution on the performance was stronger than the catalyst availability. From the comparative studies, it was found that the monolith reactor with maldistributed flow conditions provides higher productivity than the trickle bed reactor.
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".