Fines deposition during hydrotreating: Effects of catalyst size and bed arrangement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fines deposition presents a significant problem during the hydrotreating of bitumen‐derived gas oils. The accumulation of fines leads to reactor clogging and consequently, pressure drop buildup. At critical levels, the hydrotreating reactor must be prematurely shutdown, resulting in substantial economic losses for refineries. Hence, research into finding measures to address fines deposition is crucial and of interest to stakeholders in the refining industry. This research explored the effects of catalyst size and bed arrangement on fines deposition, with the goal of identifying strategies to obtain longer hydrotreating run times. Cold and hot flow fines deposition tests were conducted in three‐zone reactors using NiMo/γ‐Al 2 O 3 catalysts, with sizes ranging from 1.3 to 2.5 mm. Under cold flow conditions, maximum fines deposition was reached in 12, 14, and 25 days for 1.3, 1.6, and 2.5 mm catalyst sizes, respectively. For the hot flow tests, maximum fines deposition occurred in 15, 17, and 28 days for 1.3, 1.6, and 2.5 mm catalyst sizes, respectively. Thus, both flow tests suggested that reducing catalyst size accelerated fines deposition, primarily due to straining. However, when the catalyst bed was arranged with decreasing size from top to bottom of the reactor, the time to reach maximum fines deposition increased to 28 days (cold flow) and 34 days (hot flow). Therefore, configuring the catalyst bed to have a downward gradient of decreasing catalyst size is proposed as a potential strategy to extend hydrotreating run times.
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".