MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038870618 · doi:10.1627/jpi.63.184

Reaction Kinetics Model for a Slurry Hydrocracking Process Using Limonite Catalyst

2020· article· en· W3038870618 on OpenAlexaff
Eiji Kawai, Shigetaka FUJII, Hideki Sato, Y. Wada, Dai Takeda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japan Petroleum Institute · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsResearch & Development Corporation
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry
KeywordsNaphthaCrackingAutoclavePilot plantSlurryReaction rateChemical engineeringMaterials scienceWaste managementPulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental scienceCatalysisMetallurgyOrganic chemistryComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kobe Steel, Ltd. and Chiyoda Corp. developed the KOBELCO Slurry Phase Hydrocracking (SPH) process for the ultimate heavy oil upgrading, both at upstream wells and refineries with a cracking rate higher than 90 %. Generally, with the heavy oil hydrocracking process, a higher cracking rate is associated with a greater sludge formation rate due to a radical reaction, large molecular condensation and polymerization induced by thermal cracking. This research objective is to apply optimized operation conditions, obtained through experimental results, to the new process system’s development for the pilot and commercial plants by achieving a more than 95 wt% VR cracking rate, more than 80 wt% of oil yield, and minimizing sludge generation. For this purpose, the reaction time, amount of limonite content, reaction pressure, and reaction temperature in the 1 L autoclave are tested to find the optimal reaction point. To scale up the SPH process to pilot plants and commercial plants, a new reaction model, for which reaction conditions are theorized, must be developed. This study proposes a new reaction model by simulating the autoclave tests, verifying its validity, and discussing future challenges and plans.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japan Petroleum InstituteSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207