1932

Abstract

Flow, heat, and mass transfer in fixed beds of catalyst particles are complex phenomena and, when combined with catalytic reactions, are multiscale in both time and space; therefore, advanced computational techniques are being applied to fixed bed modeling to an ever-greater extent. The fast-growing literature on the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in fixed bed design reflects the rapid development of this subfield of reactor modeling. We identify recent trends and research directions in which successful methodology has been established, for example, in computer generation of packings of complex particles, and where more work is needed, for example, in the meshing of nonsphere packings and the simulation of industrial-size packed tubes. Development of fixed bed reactor models, by either using CFD directly or obtaining insight, closures, and parameters for engineering models from simulations, will increase confidence in using these methods for design along with, or instead of, expensive pilot-scale experiments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092319-075328
2020-06-07
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/chembioeng/11/1/annurev-chembioeng-092319-075328.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092319-075328&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Dixon AG, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2006. Packed tubular reactor modelling and catalyst design using computational fluid dynamics. Adv. Chem. Eng. 31:307–89
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Jurtz N, Kraume M, Wehinger GD 2019. Advances in fixed-bed reactor modeling using particle-resolved computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Rev. Chem. Eng. 35:139–90
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Dixon AG, Nijemeisland M. 2001. CFD as a design tool for fixed-bed reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40:5246–54
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Wehinger GD, Kraume M. 2017. CFD als Designtool für Festbettreaktoren mit kleinem Rohr-zu-Pelletdurchmesser-Verhältnis: Heute oder in Zukunft?. Chem. Ing. Tech. 89:447–53
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2019. 110th anniversary: commentary: CFD as a modeling tool for fixed bed reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58:5733–36
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Wang Y, Chen J, Larachi F 2013. Modelling and simulation of trickle-bed reactors using computational fluid dynamics: a state-of-the-art review. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 91:136–80
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Jakobsen HA, Lindborg H, Handeland V 2002. A numerical study of the interactions between viscous flow, transport and kinetics in fixed bed reactors. Comput. Chem. Eng. 26:333–57
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Wu CY, Ferng YM, Chieng CC, Liu CC 2010. Investigating the advantages and disadvantages of realistic approach and porous approach for closely packed pebbles in CFD simulation. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240:1151–59
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Gao X, Zhu Y-P, Luo Z-H 2011. CFD modeling of gas flow in porous medium and catalytic coupling reaction from carbon monoxide to diethyl oxalate in fixed-bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 66:6028–38
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Zhuang Y-Q, Gao X, Zhu Y-P, Luo Z-H 2012. CFD modeling of methanol to olefins process in a fixed-bed reactor. Powder Technol 221:419–30
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Hamzah AB, Ookawara S, Yoshikawa S, Matsumoto H 2019. CFD modelling of mass and heat dispersion in sphere fixed bed with porosity-dependent segmented-continuum approaches. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 141:93–114
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Soppe W. 1990. Computer simulation of random packings of hard spheres. Powder Technol 62:189–96
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Freund H, Zeiser T, Huber F, Klemm E, Brenner G et al. 2003. Numerical simulations of single phase reacting flows in randomly packed fixed-bed reactors and experimental validation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58:903–10
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Freund H, Bauer J, Zeiser T, Emig G 2005. Detailed simulation of transport processes in fixed-beds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44:6423–34
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Eppinger T, Jurtz N, Aglave R 2014. Automated workflow for spatially resolved packed bed reactors with spherical and non-spherical particles. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on CFD in Oil & Gas, Metallurgical and Process Industries, Trondheim, June 17–19 Trondheim, Nor.: SINTEF
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Caulkin R, Tian W, Pasha M, Hassanpour A, Jia X 2015. Impact of shape representation schemes used in discrete element modelling of particle packing. Comput. Chem. Eng. 76:160–69
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Wachs A, Girolami L, Vinay G, Ferrer G 2012. Grains3D, a flexible DEM approach for particles of arbitrary convex shape—part I: numerical model and validations. Powder Technol 224:374–89
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Rakotonirina AD, Wachs A. 2018. Grains3D, a flexible DEM approach for particles of arbitrary convex shape—part II: parallel implementation and scalable performance. Powder Technol 324:18–35
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Rakotonirina AD, Delenne JY, Radjai F, Wachs A 2018. Grains3D, a flexible DEM approach for particles of arbitrary convex shape—part III: extension to non-convex particles modelled as glued convex particles. Comp. Part. Mech. 324:1–30
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Seelen LJH, Padding JT, Kuipers JAM 2018. A granular discrete element method for arbitrary convex particle shapes: method and packing generation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 189:84–101
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Marigo M, Stitt EH. 2015. Discrete element method (DEM) for industrial applications: comments on calibration and validation for the modelling of cylindrical pellets. Kona Powder Part. J. 32:236–52
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Yan Z, Wilkinson SK, Stitt EH, Marigo M 2015. Discrete element modelling (DEM) input parameters: understanding their impact on model predictions using statistical analysis. Comp. Part. Mech. 2:283–99
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Farsi A, Xiang J, Latham JP, Carlsson M, Stitt EH, Marigo M 2017. Simulation and characterisation of packed columns for cylindrical catalyst supports and other complex-shaped bodies. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods397–406 Springer Proc. Phys. 188 Singapore: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Marek M. 2013. Numerical generation of a fixed bed structure. Chem. Process Eng. 34:347–59
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Niegodajew P, Marek M. 2016. Analysis of orientation distribution in numerically generated random packings of Raschig rings in a cylindrical container. Powder Technol 297:193–201
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Boccardo G, Augier F, Haroun Y, Ferre D, Marchisio DL 2015. Validation of a novel open-source work-flow for the simulation of packed-bed reactors. Chem. Eng. J. 279:809–20
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2017. An integrated workflow for resolved-particle packed bed models with complex particle shapes. Powder Technol 322:258–72
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Moghaddam EM, Foumeny EA, Stankiewicz AI, Padding JT 2018. Rigid body dynamics algorithm for modeling random packing structures of nonspherical and nonconvex pellets. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57:14988–5007
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Fernengel J, Habla F, Hinrichsen O 2018. Scripting as an approach to automated CFD simulation for packed bed catalytic reactor modeling. Chem. Ing. Tech. 90:685–89
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Fleischlen S, Wehinger GD. 2019. Synthetic packed-bed generation for CFD simulations: Blender versus STAR-CCM+. ChemEngineering 3:52
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Baker MJ, Daniels S, Young PG, Tabor GR 2014. Investigation of flow through a computationally generated packed column using CFD and additive layer manufacturing. Comput. Chem. Eng. 67:159–65
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Wu Y, Hou Q, Yu A 2019. Pore-scale study of fluid flow and drag force in randomly packed beds of different porosities. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58:5041–53
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Sengar A, Kuipers JAM, van Santen RA, Padding JT 2019. Towards a particle based approach for multiscale modeling of heterogeneous catalytic reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 198:184–97
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Kravets B, Rosemann T, Reinecke SR, Kruggel-Emden H 2019. A new drag force and heat transfer correlation derived from direct numerical LBM-simulations of flown through particle packings. Powder Technol 345:438–56
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Li X, Cai J, Xin F, Huai X, Guo J 2013. Lattice Boltzmann simulation of endothermal catalytic reaction in catalyst porous media. Appl. Therm. Eng. 50:1194–200
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Touitou J, Aiouache F, Burch R, Douglas R, Hardacre C et al. 2014. Evaluation of an in situ spatial resolution instrument for fixed beds through the assessment of the invasiveness of probes and a comparison with a micro-kinetic model. J. Catal. 319:239–46
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Guo X, Dai R. 2010. Numerical simulation of flow and heat transfer in a random packed bed. Particuology 8:293–99
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Finn J, Apte SV. 2013. Relative performance of body fitted and fictitious domain simulations of flow through fixed packed beds of spheres. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 56:54–71
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Sulaiman M, Hammouti A, Climent E, Wachs A 2019. Coupling the fictitious domain and sharp interface methods for the simulation of convective mass transfer around reactive particles: towards a reactive Sherwood number correlation for dilute systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 198:334–51
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Das S, Deen NG, Kuipers JAM 2017. A DNS study of flow and heat transfer through slender fixed-bed reactors randomly packed with spherical particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 160:1–19
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Yuan B, Xu J, Mao Z, Zhang Y, Yang C 2019. Particle-resolved simulation of packed beds by non-body conforming locally refined orthogonal hexahedral mesh. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 27:2635–42
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Guardo A, Coussirat M, Larrayoz MA, Recasens F, Egusquiza E 2004. CFD flow and heat transfer in nonregular packings for fixed bed equipment design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43:7049–56
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Ookawara S, Kuroki M, Street D, Ogawa K 2007. High-fidelity DEM-CFD modeling of packed bed reactors for process intensification. Proceedings of European Congress of Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6), Copenhagen, Sept. 16–20 Pap. no 1105 Kongens Lyngby, Den.: Tech. Univ. Den.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Eppinger T, Seidler K, Kraume M 2011. DEM-CFD simulations of fixed bed reactors with small tube to particle diameter ratios. Chem. Eng. J. 166:324–31
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Dixon AG, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2013. Systematic mesh development for 3D CFD simulation of fixed beds: contact points study. Comput. Chem. Eng. 48:135–53
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Bu SS, Yang J, Zhou M, Li SY, Wang QW, Guo ZX 2014. On contact point modifications for forced convective heat transfer analysis in a structured packed bed of spheres. Nucl. Eng. Des. 270:21–33
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Rebughini S, Cuoci A, Maestri M 2016. Handling contact points in reactive CFD simulations of heterogeneous catalytic fixed bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 141:240–49
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Kodam M, Bharadwaj R, Curtis J, Hancock B, Wassgren C 2010. Cylindrical object contact detection for use in discrete element method simulations. Part I—contact detection algorithms. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65:5852–62
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Wehinger GD, Füterer C, Kraume M 2017. Contact modifications for CFD simulations of fixed-bed reactors: cylindrical particles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56:87–99
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Maestri M, Cuoci A. 2013. Coupling CFD with detailed microkinetic modeling in heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 96:106–17
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Dixon AG, Taskin ME, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2010. CFD method to couple three-dimensional transport and reaction inside catalyst particles to the fixed bed flow field. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49:9012–25
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Matera S, Maestri M, Cuoci A, Reuter K 2014. Predictive-quality surface reaction chemistry in real reactor models: integrating first-principles kinetic Monte Carlo simulations into computational fluid dynamics. ACS Catal 4:4081–92
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2016. Computationally efficient incorporation of microkinetics into resolved-particle CFD simulations of fixed-bed reactors. Comput. Chem. Eng. 88:126–34
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Partopour B, Paffenroth RC, Dixon AG 2018. Random forests for mapping and analysis of microkinetics models. Comput. Chem. Eng. 115:286–94
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Klingenberger M, Hirsch O, Votsmeier M 2017. Efficient interpolation of precomputed kinetic data employing reduced multivariate Hermite Splines. Comput. Chem. Eng. 98:21–30
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Rebughini S, Cuoci A, Dixon AG, Maestri M 2017. Cell agglomeration algorithm for coupling microkinetic modeling and steady-state CFD simulations of catalytic reactors. Comput. Chem. Eng. 97:175–82
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Blasi JM, Kee RJ. 2016. In situ adaptive tabulation (ISAT) to accelerate transient computational fluid dynamics with complex heterogeneous chemical kinetics. Comput. Chem. Eng. 84:36–42
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Dong Y, Keil FJ, Korup O, Rosowski F, Horn R 2016. Effect of the catalyst pore structure on fixed-bed reactor performance of partial oxidation of n-butane: a simulation study. Chem. Eng. Sci. 142:299–309
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Wehinger GD, Klippel F, Kraume M 2017. Modeling pore processes for particle-resolved CFD simulations of catalytic fixed-bed reactors. Comput. Chem. Eng. 101:11–22
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Donaubauer PJ, Hinrichsen O. 2018. A Monte-Carlo-based sensitivity analysis of multicomponent diffusion in porous catalysts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 185:282–91
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Partopour B, Troupel A, Dixon AG 2019. Flux-dependent anisotropic pellet diffusivity in particle-resolved CFD simulations of fixed beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 198:224–34
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Bufe A, Klee M, Wehinger GD, Turek T 2017. 3D modeling of a catalyst layer with transport pore for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Chem. Ing. Tech. 89:1385–90
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2018. Resolved-pore simulation of CO oxidation on Rh/Al2O3 in a catalyst layer. ChemEngineering 2:2
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Kolaczkowski ST, Chao R, Awdry S, Smith A 2007. Application of a CFD code (Fluent) to formulate models of catalytic gas phase reactions in porous catalyst pellets. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85:1539–52
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Dixon AG, Taskin ME, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2007. 3D CFD simulations of steam reforming with resolved intraparticle reaction and gradients. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62:4963–66
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Taskin ME, Troupel A, Dixon AG, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2010. Flow, transport and reaction interactions for cylindrical particles with strongly endothermic reactions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49:9026–37
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Dixon AG, Boudreau J, Rocheleau A, Troupel A, Taskin ME et al. 2012. Flow, transport and reaction interactions in shaped cylindrical particles for methane steam reforming. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51:15839–54
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Karthik GM, Buwa VV. 2018. Particle-resolved simulations of methane steam reforming in multilayered packed beds. AIChE J 64:4162–76
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Karthik GM, Thaker AH, Buwa VV 2019. Particle-resolved simulations of catalytic fixed bed reactors: comparison of turbulent models, LES and PIV measurements. Powder Technol 361:474–89
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Peng W, Xu M, Huai X, Liu Z 2016. 3D CFD simulations of acetone hydrogenation in randomly packed beds for an isopropanol-acetone-hydrogen chemical heat pump. Appl. Therm. Eng. 94:238–48
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Maffei T, Gentile G, Rebughini S, Bracconi M, Manelli F et al. 2016. A multiregion operator-splitting CFD approach for coupling microkinetic modeling with internal porous transport in heterogeneous catalytic reactors. Chem. Eng. J. 283:1392–404
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Bracconi M, Maestri M, Cuoci A 2017. In situ adaptive tabulation for the CFD simulation of heterogeneous reactors based on operator-splitting algorithm. AIChE J 63:95–104
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Corbetta M, Manenti F, Visconti CG 2014. CATalytic—Post Processor (CAT-PP): a new methodology for the CFD-based simulation of highly diluted reactive heterogeneous systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 60:76–85
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Hettel M, Diehm C, Deutschmann O 2015. Numerical simulation of a structured catalytic methane reformer by DUO: the new computational interface for OpenFOAM® and DETCHEM™. Catal. Today 258:230–40
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Dybbs A, Edwards RV. 1984. A new look at porous media fluid mechanics—Darcy to turbulent. Fundamentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media J Bear, MY Corapcioglu 201–56 Dordrecht, Neth.: Martinus Nijhoff
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Seguin D, Montillet A, Comiti J, Huet F 1998. Experimental characterization of flow regimes in various porous media—II: transition to turbulent regime. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53:3897–909
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Lee JJ, Yoon SJ, Park GC, Lee WJ 2007. Turbulence-induced heat transfer in PBMR core using LES and RANS. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 44:985–96
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Dixon AG, Taskin ME, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2011. Systematic mesh development for 3D CFD simulation of fixed beds: single sphere study. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35:1171–85
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Shams A, Roelofs F, Komen EMJ, Baglietto E 2014. Large eddy simulation of a randomly stacked nuclear pebble bed. Comput. Fluids 96:302–21
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Shams A, Roelofs F, Komen EMJ, Baglietto E 2015. Improved delayed detached eddy simulation of a randomly stacked nuclear pebble bed. Comput. Fluids 122:12–25
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Guardo A, Coussirat M, Larrayoz MA, Recasens F, Egusquiza E 2005. Influence of the turbulence model in CFD modeling of wall-to-fluid heat transfer in packed beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60:1733–42
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Coussirat M, Guardo A, Mateos B, Egusquiza E 2007. Performance of stress-transport models in the prediction of particle-to-fluid heat transfer in packed beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62:6897–907
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Jiang L, Liu H, Suo S, Xie M, Wu D, Bai M 2018. Pore-scale simulation of flow and turbulence characteristics in three-dimensional randomly packed beds. Powder Technol 338:197–210
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Behnam M, Dixon AG, Wright PM, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2012. Comparison of CFD simulations to experiment under methane steam reforming reacting conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 207–8:690–700
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Wehinger GD, Kraume M, Berg V, Korup O, Mette K et al. 2016. Investigating dry reforming of methane with spatial reactor profiles and particle-resolved CFD simulations. AIChE J 62:4436–52
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Wehinger GD. 2019. Radiation matters in fixed-bed CFD simulations. Chem. Ing. Tech. 91:583–91
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Wehinger GD, Flaischlen S. 2019. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of radiation in a steam methane reforming fixed-bed reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58:14410–23
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2019. Integrated multiscale modeling of fixed bed reactors: Studying the reactor under dynamic reaction conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 377:119738
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Zobel N, Eppinger T, Behrendt F, Kraume M 2012. Influence of the wall structure on the void fraction distribution in packed beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 71:212–19
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Caulkin R, Jia X, Xu C, Fairweather M, Williams RA et al. 2009. Simulations of structures in packed columns and validation by X-ray tomography. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48:202–13
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Fernengel J, von Seckendorff J, Hinrichsen O 2018. Influence of cylinder-to-particle diameter ratio and filling speed on bed porosity of random packed beds of spheres. Proceedings of the 28th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineeringed S Radl, J Klemes, P Varbanov, T Wallekpp97–102 Amsterdam: Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64235-6.50019-X
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Agrawal N, Nair P, Pöschel T, Roy S 2019. Isotropy of sphere packings in a cylindrical confinement. Chem. Eng. J. 377:119820
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Vollmari K, Oschmann T, Wirtz S, Kruggel-Emden H 2015. Pressure drop investigations in packings of arbitrary shaped particles. Powder Technol 271:109–24
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Robbins DJ, El-Bachir MS, Gladden LF, Cant RS, von Harbou E 2012. CFD modeling of single-phase flow in a packed bed with MRI validation. AIChE J 58:3904–15
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Lovreglio P, Das S, Buist KA, Peters EAJF, Pel L, Kuipers JAM 2018. Experimental and numerical investigation of structure and hydrodynamics in packed beds of spherical particles. AIChE J 64:1896–907
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Alzahrani F, Aldehani M, Rusi H, McMaster M, Abreu Fernandes DL et al. 2015. Gas flow visualization in low aspect ratio packed beds by three-dimensional modeling and near-infrared tomography. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54:12714–29
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Thaker AH, Karthik GM, Buwa VV 2019. PIV measurements and CFD simulations of the particle-scale flow distribution in a packed bed. Chem. Eng. J. 374:189–200
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Mohanty R, Mohanty S, Mishra BK 2016. Study of flow through a packed bed using discrete element method and computational fluid dynamics. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. E 63:71–80
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Dorai F, Rolland M, Wachs A, Marcoux M, Climent E 2015. CFD simulations of flow in random packed beds of spheres and cylinders: analysis of the velocity field. Progress in Applied CFD: Selected Papers from 10th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Oil & Gas, Metallurgical and Process Industries, Vol. 1 JE Olsen, ST Johansen 143–48 Oslo, Nor.: SINTEF Acad http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2464782
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Dorai F, Teixeira CM, Rolland M, Climent E, Marcoux M, Wachs A 2015. Fully resolved simulations of the flow through a packed bed of cylinders: effect of size distribution. Chem. Eng. Sci. 129:180–92
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Marek M. 2017. Numerical simulation of a gas flow in a real geometry of random packed bed of Raschig rings. Chem. Eng. Sci. 161:382–93
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Marek M. 2019. Gas flow maldistribution in random packed beds of non-spherical particles—a CFD study. Chem. Eng. Sci. 197:296–305
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Pavlišič A, Ceglar R, Poharand A, Likozar B 2018. Comparison of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and pressure drop correlations in laminar flow regime for packed bed reactors and columns. Powder Technol 328:130–39
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Moghaddam EM, Foumeny EA, Stankiewicz AI, Padding JT 2019. Fixed bed reactors of non-spherical pellets: importance of heterogeneities and inadequacy of azimuthal averaging. Chem. Eng. Sci. X 1:100006
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Augier F, Idoux F, Delenne J 2010. Numerical simulations of transfer and transport properties inside packed beds of spherical particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65:1055–64
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Yang J, Wu J, Zhou L, Wang Q 2016. Computational study of fluid flow and heat transfer in composite packed beds of spheres with low tube to particle diameter ratio. Nucl. Eng. Des. 300:85–96
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Zhang M, Dong H, Geng Z 2018. Computational study of flow and heat transfer in fixed beds with cylindrical particles for low tube to particle diameter ratios. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 132:149–61
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Dong Y, Sosna B, Korup O, Rosowski F, Horn R 2017. Investigation of radial heat transfer in a fixed-bed reactor: CFD simulations and profile measurements. Chem. Eng. J. 317:204–14
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Singhal A, Cloete S, Quinta-Ferreira R, Amini S 2017. Multiscale modelling of packed bed chemical looping reforming. Energy Procedia 136:349–55
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2017. Resolved-particle fixed bed CFD with microkinetics for ethylene oxidation. AIChE J 63:85–94
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Partopour B, Dixon AG. 2018. n-Butane partial oxidation in a fixed bed: a resolved particle computational fluid dynamics simulation. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 96:1946–56
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Dong Y, Geske M, Korup O, Ellenfeld N, Rosowski F et al. 2018. What happens in a catalytic fixed-bed reactor for n-butane oxidation to maleic anhydride? Insights from spatial profile measurements and particle resolved CFD simulations. Chem. Eng. J. 350:799–811
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Wehinger GD, Eppinger T, Kraume M 2015. Evaluating catalytic fixed-bed reactors for dry reforming of methane with detailed CFD. Chem. Ing. Tech. 87:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Wehinger GD, Eppinger T, Kraume M 2015. Detailed numerical simulations of catalytic fixed-bed reactors: heterogeneous dry reforming of methane. Chem. Eng. Sci. 122:197–209
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Behnam M, Dixon AG. 2017. 3D CFD simulations of local carbon formation in steam methane reforming catalyst particles. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 15:6
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Alzahrani F, Rusi H, Assabumrungrat S, Fernandes DLA, Aiouache F 2019. Deactivation of the preferential oxidation of CO in packed bed reactor by 3D modelling and near-infrared tomography. Chem. Eng. J. 378:122082
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Atmakidis T, Kenig EY. 2012. Numerical analysis of mass transfer in packed-bed reactors with irregular particle arrangements. Chem. Eng. Sci. 81:77–83
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Atmakidis T, Kenig EY. 2014. Numerical investigations of packed bed reactors with irregular particle arrangements. 24th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering: Part A J Klemes, P Varbanov, PY Liew 217–22 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Bale S, Sathe M, Ayeni O, Berrouk AS, Joshi J, Nandakumar K 2017. Spatially resolved mass transfer coefficient for moderate Reynolds number flows in packed beds: wall effects. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 110:406–15
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Bale S, Tiwari S, Sathe M, Berrouk AS, Nandakumar K, Joshi J 2018. Direct numerical simulation study of end effects and D/d ratio on mass transfer in packed beds. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 127:234–44
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Kruggel-Emden H, Kravets B, Suryanarayana MK, Jasevicius R 2016. Direct numerical simulation of coupled fluid flow and heat transfer for single particles and particle packings by a LBM-approach. Powder Technol 294:236–51
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Kravets B, Kruggel-Emden H. 2017. Investigation of local heat transfer in random particle packings by a fully resolved LBM-approach. Powder Technol 318:293–305
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Buist KA, Backx BJGH, Deen NG, Kuipers JAM 2017. A combined experimental and simulation study of fluid-particle heat transfer in dense arrays of stationary particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 169:310–20
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Sun B, Tenneti S, Subramaniam S 2015. Modeling average gas-solid heat transfer using particle-resolved direct numerical simulation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 86:898–913
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Singhal A, Cloete S, Radl S, Quinta-Ferreira R, Amini S 2017. Heat transfer to a gas from densely packed beds of monodisperse spherical particles. Chem. Eng. J. 314:27–37
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Singhal A, Cloete S, Radl S, Quinta-Ferreira R, Amini S 2017. Heat transfer to a gas from densely packed beds of cylindrical particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 172:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Jourak A, Hellström JGI, Lundström TS, Frishfelds V 2014. Numerical derivation of dispersion coefficients for flow through three-dimensional randomly packed beds of monodisperse spheres. AIChE J 60:749–61
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Dixon AG, Medeiros NJ. 2017. Computational fluid dynamics simulations of gas-phase radial dispersion in fixed beds with wall effects. Fluids 2:56
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Dixon AG, Gurnon AK, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2013. CFD testing of the pointwise use of the Zehner-Schlünder formulas for fixed-bed stagnant thermal conductivity. Int. Commun. Heat Mass. 42:1–4
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Mathey F. 2013. Numerical up-scaling approach for the simulation of heat-transfer in randomly packed beds. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 61:451–63
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Thiagalingam I, Dallet M, Bennaceur I, Cadalen S, Sagaut P 2015. Exact non-local expression for the wall heat transfer coefficient in tubular catalytic reactors. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 54:97–106
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Thiagalingam I, Sagaut P. 2016. Pseudo-homogeneous 1D RANS radial model for heat transfer in tubular packed beds. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 62:258–72
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Dixon AG. 2017. CFD study of local transport and reaction rates in a fixed bed reactor tube: endothermic steam methane reforming. Chem. Eng. Sci. 168:156–77
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Behnam M, Dixon AG, Nijemeisland M, Stitt EH 2013. A new approach to fixed bed radial heat transfer modeling using velocity fields from CFD simulations. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52:15244–61
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Asensio DA, Zambon MT, Mazza GD, Barreto GF 2014. Heterogeneous two-region model for low-aspect-ratio fixed-bed catalytic reactors: analysis of fluid-convective contributions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53:3587–605
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Zambon MT, Asensio DA, Barreto GF, Mazza GD 2014. Application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the evaluation of fluid convective radial heat transfer parameters in packed beds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53:19052–61
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Suárez F, Luzi CD, Mariani NJ, Barreto GF 2017. Effective parameters for conductive contributions to radial heat transfer in fixed beds under stagnant conditions. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 119:245–62
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Rebughini S, Cuoci A, Maestri M 2016. Hierarchical analysis of the gas-to-particle heat and mass transfer in micro packed bed reactors. Chem. Eng. J. 289:471–78
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Rebughini S, Bracconi M, Dixon AG, Maestri M 2018. A hierarchical approach to chemical reactor engineering: an application to micro packed-bed reactors. React. Chem. Eng. 3:25–33
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Kolaczkowski ST, Awdry S, Smith T, Thomas D, Torkuhl L, Kolvenbach R 2016. Potential for metal foams to act as structured catalyst supports in fixed-bed reactors. Catal. Today 273:221–33
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Das S, Deen NG, Kuipers JAM 2018. Multiscale modeling of fixed-bed reactors with porous (open-cell foam) nonspherical particles: hydrodynamics. Chem. Eng. J. 334:741–59
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Wehinger GD, Kolaczkowski ST, Schmalhorst L, Beton D, Torkuhl L 2019. Modeling fixed-bed reactors from metal-foam pellets with detailed CFD. Chem. Eng. J. 373:709–19
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Dong Y, Korup O, Gerdts J, Roldán Cuenya B, Horn R 2018. Microtomography-based CFD modeling of a fixed-bed reactor with an open cell foam monolith and experimental verification by reactor profile measurements. Chem. Eng. J. 353:176–88
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Visconti CG, Groppi G, Tronconi E 2016. Highly conductive “packed foams”: a new concept for the intensification of strongly endo- and exo-thermic catalytic processes in compact tubular reactors. Catal. Today 273:178–86
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Torres D, Lopez N, Illas F, Lambert RM 2005. Why copper is intrinsically more selective than silver in alkene epoxidation: ethylene oxidation on Cu(111) versus Ag(111). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127:10774–75
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092319-075328
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092319-075328
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error