4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Packed Periodic Open Cellular Structures - an Option for the Intensification of Non-Adiabatic Catalytic Processes

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2020.108057

关键词

Process intensification; Additive manufacturing; Structured catalysts; Heat transfer; Pressure drop

资金

  1. European Research Council [694910]
  2. Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Media, Energy and Technology
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [694910] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conductive structured catalysts offer significant potential for the intensification of gas-solid catalytic processes owing to their enhanced heat transfer properties. A major drawback is the limited catalyst inventory. Recently, packed foams were proposed to overcome the catalyst inventory limitation. The effectiveness of this concept was proven at lab-scale for intensified reactors filled with small catalyst particles. When adopting commercial foams and industrial-scale catalyst pellets, however, poor packing efficiencies are expected, limiting the potential of this concept. Similarly to foams, Periodic Open Cellular Structures (POCS) grant high heat transfer rates thanks to substantial heat conduction in their solid matrix. Additively manufactured POCS additionally offer great design flexibility. This allows for using a wider range of pellet sizes. In this work, particle packed POCS are introduced and packing efficiencies are systematically studied. Pressure drop in packed POCS is also analyzed and a suitable correlation is proposed. The heat transfer associated with this innovative reactor solution is investigated by performing non-reactive heat transfer experiments. Based on these experiments, a predictive heat transfer model is established and successfully validated with experimental data. The enormous potential of packed POCS for process intensification is illustrated by a case study of a Sabatier pilot reactor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据