Fixed‐Bed Reactors

DOI: 10.1002/14356007.b04_199 In book: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry


The present paper presents the phenomena occurring in fixed bed reactors spanning, from the small scale of single pellet, where reaction and diffusion are competing, to the macroscale of whole apparatus, where dispersion and heat transfer play an important role; the most important models used in describing the behaviour of fixed bed reactors and the dependence of most relevant parameters from the geometrical characteristics of the reactor and from the physical properties of the reacting gases are examined. Advice is given in order to design the reactor choosing the governing parameters in order to have stable and effective performance, avoiding situations with multiple solutions and hence potential instability problems.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Another important parameter for the reactor design is the ratio between reactor and catalyst particle diameters which affects the heat transfer from the catalyst to the reactor wall. The value of 12, selected in this study, is close to the lower limit of the reference range for industrial operations with a single tube [7]. This choice limits temperature hot spots for exothermic reactions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concepts of process intensification and renewable sources use are becoming more popular in process design as a consequence of the shortage of raw materials and of the impact of modern society on the environment. Membrane reactors can combine reaction and separation steps in a single unit, improving the efficiency of operations. Mass and heat transport in a non-isothermal membrane reactor for an exothermic reaction as a function of working temperature, pressure, sweep flow rate, molar feed ratio and feed flow rate of the reagents was investigated by computer simulation. The analysis of the inherent safety aspects of the membrane reactor at different working conditions was developed using the HAZOP technique.
    Desalination 05/2006; 193(1):267-279. DOI:10.1016/j.desal.2005.06.064 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cited By (since 1996): 4, Export Date: 13 April 2010, Source: Scopus, CODEN: IJHMA, doi: 10.1016/S0017-9310(01)00008-4, Language of Original Document: English, Correspondence Address: Goldstein, R.J.; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 111 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111, United States; email:, References: Das, A.K., Sadhal, S.S., Thermal constriction resistance between two solids for random distribution of contacts (1999) Heat and Mass Transfer, 35 (2), p. 101;
    International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 10/2001; 44(19-19):3579-3699. DOI:10.1016/S0017-9310(01)00008-4 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the development of environmental friendly and highly efficient energy processes, membrane reactors hold an important role for their ability to carry out, simultaneously and in the same unit, the separation and reaction steps. Taking advantage of the synergies deriving from this coupling, they achieve comparable results to the conventional reactors at less severe conditions. A sensitivity analysis has been developed in order to define the role of some variables on the performance of a membrane reactor for maximizing the system efficiency. The behaviour of a membrane reactor has been investigated by means of a two-dimensional mathematical model applied to the water–gas shift reaction. By depending on operation feed pressure, a specific choice of both sweep gas flow rate and temperature can limit the occurring of dangerous temperature hot spots without compromising the performance of the system. The catalyst distribution coupled with an efficient heat exchange across the membrane have been investigated as possible technical solutions adequate to control hot spots along the membrane reactor.
    The Chemical Engineering Journal 03/2008; 136(s 2–3):373–382. DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2007.05.036 · 4.32 Impact Factor
Show more