MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391985903 · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2024.149844

Methane pyrolysis for hydrogen production: Modeling of soot deposition by computational fluid dynamics and experimental validation

2024· article· en· W4391985903 on OpenAlexafffund
Filippo Carretta, Silvia Pelucchi, Federico Galli, Paolo Mocellin

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVerband der Chemischen Industrie
KeywordsSootComputational fluid dynamicsMethanePyrolysisDeposition (geology)Hydrogen productionHydrogenMaterials scienceProduction (economics)Chemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceChemistryMechanicsCombustionPhysicsEngineeringOrganic chemistryGeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane pyrolysis is an attractive technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since the carbonaceous part of the hydrocarbon is captured into a solid, easier to store than carbon dioxide. In this framework, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is an excellent tool to simulate the catalyst deactivation and the complex phenomena arising on the carbon surface. We investigated thermal and catalytical pyrolysis of methane in a tubular quartz reactor with an internal diameter of 3.8 cm. We modeled soot deposition and added a new surface mass balance that parametrize bed porosity as time-dependent variable. Our model predicts occlusion (clogging) time for empty and packed bed reactor: operating at 1373 K, an empty bed clogs in 15 d, which is coherent with industrial operations. The model well predicts methane conversion in the empty reactor even after 24 h time on stream. When a packed bed is used, the experimental conversion follow the predicted activity decay, with deviations due to the size distribution of the carbon during experiments. Radiation is the main heat transfer mechanism (86 % of the total heat absorbed by the system), compared to the others involved in this system, i.e., conduction, which is more than 50 times smaller, natural convection, more than 18 times smaller, and forced convection, more than 300 times smaller.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering JournalSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207