Data analysis-based framework for the design and assessment of chemical process plants: a case study in amine gas-treating systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents a process-integrity assessment framework to chemical process design that combines first principles, heuristics, vendor specifications, standards/codes, data analysis, and machine learning modelling, hypothesized as an efficient route for optimal process design. Our case study, a gas treating unit, illustrates its implementation compared with traditional process guidelines. Surrogate models are fitted with hybrid data from process simulation and plant values, supporting the integration between process and integrity values, as well as equipment sizing and cost estimation. Considerable errors are obtained when estimating design duty (1.4%–8.7%) and power requirements (11.1%–33.5%) of the main equipment. Potential sources of these deviations might be attributable to the inherent simplification of process guidelines and intrinsic noise of the plant data used for fitting surrogate models. The process design is then assessed by evaluating process variables and corrosion rate within an operational envelope, showing the synergy and integration of these variables. The benefits and challenges of this approach are drawn while future work in engineering education is presented for its future implementation and effectiveness assessment in enhancing the process design workflow.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it