MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965598338 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23619

Modelling coke formation in an industrial ethane‐cracking furnace for ethylene production

2019· article· en· W2965598338 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Hadiseh Karimi, B. O. Olayiwola, Hany Farag, Kimberley B. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)Queen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsNOVA Chemicals
KeywordsCokeCrackingBlast furnacePyrolytic carbonFluid catalytic crackingCoke strength after reactionCatalysisMetallurgyEthylenePyrolysisMaterials scienceChemistryPetroleum cokeOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The development of a model for predicting coke formation in an industrial ethylene cracking furnace is described. Expressions for predicting the rates of catalytic and pyrolytic coke formation are developed and a differential equation is derived to predict changes in coke thickness with time and position. An expression is developed to account for a decline in the rate of catalytic coke formation with increasing thickness of the coke layer. The proposed coke model equations are used to extend a previously developed ethane pyrolysis furnace model that ignored coke. Three model parameters related to coke formation are estimated using industrial data to obtain reliable model predictions. Two of these parameters are coefficients that appear in the catalytic and pyrolytic coke formation rate expressions. The third is a characteristic‐length parameter used to reduce the rate of catalytic coke formation as the coke layer grows. The resulting dynamic model matches the industrial data well and can be used to simulate furnace operation and predict coke thickness profiles over a variety of the operating conditions, thereby helping process engineers who plan the decoking process.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207