Converters monolithic

Some catalyst supports rely on a relatively low surface area stmctural member coated with a layer of a higher surface area support material. The automotive catalytic converter monolith support is an example of this technology. In this appHcation, a central core of multichanneled, low surface area, extmded ceramic about 10 cm in diameter is coated with high surface area partially hydrated alumina onto which are deposited small amounts of precious metals as the active catalytic species. 

Technical advantage/fimction Ceramic fibres are used in automotive catalytic converters as bearing and adjustment materials for the catalytic converter (monolith), where the chemical reactions for exhaust cleaning take place. They are also used for thermal and acoustic insulation. Series-tested ceramic fibre substitutes for converter-specific usage conditions are not yet available... 

In the past, the principles described have been implicitly recognized in several attempts to convert monolithic catalysts into catalytic heat exchangers. While the use of millimeter dimensions and nanoporous ceramic supports meets the primary criteria already mentioned, the parallel channel structure of monoliths is not ideally tailored for heat exchanger applications, and complex header structures are required to uniformly distribute and collect reaction medium and coolant to and from the individual channels (Figure 9). The unsatisfactory interface between the milli- and macroscale has been a major weakness of such concepts. 

Pressure Drop And Flow Distribution In A Converter Monolith... 

Fig. 4 Combination pressure head and die assembly for experimental catalytic-converter monoliths used in diesel particulate control systems...

In a catalytic exhaust gas converter (monolith catalyst), the following reactions take place on a Pt catalyst ... 

With the advent of automobile catalytic converters, monolithic catalyst beds have been developed to convert unbumed hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to combustion products. These oxidation reactions are highly exothermic. Thus, the catalyst is deposited only on the surface layers of the support. Other design considerations are a mechanically strong bed to withstand mechanical and thermal shock, and low pressure drop. These requirements led to monolithic catalyst beds of various configurations. 

The most widely used exhaust control device consists of a ceramic monolith with a thin-waHed open honeycomb stmcture. The accessible surface of this monolith system is iacreased by applyiag a separate coatiag, a wash coat, of a high surface area material such as gamma-alumiaa with the catalyticaHy active species impregaated iato this washcoat. The catalyst aeeds to oxidize hydrocarboas, coavert CO to CO2, and reduce NO. The whole system forms a catalytic converter that, suitably encased, is placed between the engine and the muffler/silencer unit. 

Use of the peUetted converter, developed and used by General Motors starting in 1975, has declined since 1980. The advantage of the peUetted converter, which consists of a packed bed of small spherical beads about 3 mm in diameter, is that the pellets were less cosdy to manufacture than the monolithic honeycomb. Disadvantages were the peUetted converter had 2 to 3 times more weight and volume, took longer to heat up, and was more susceptible to attrition and loss of catalyst in use. The monolithic honeycomb can be mounted in any orientation, whereas the peUetted converter had to be downflow. AdditionaUy, the pressure drop of the monolithic honeycomb is one-half to one-quarter that of a similar function peUetted converter. 

ActivatedL yer Loss. Loss of the catalytic layer is the third method of deactivation. Attrition, erosion, or loss of adhesion and exfoHation of the active catalytic layer aU. result in loss of catalyst performance. The monolithic honeycomb catalyst is designed to be resistant to aU. of these mechanisms. There is some erosion of the inlet edge of the cells at the entrance to the monolithic honeycomb, but this loss is minor. The peUetted catalyst is more susceptible to attrition losses because the pellets in the catalytic bed mb against each other. Improvements in the design of the peUetted converter, the surface hardness of the peUets, and the depth of the active layer of the peUets also minimise loss of catalyst performance from attrition in that converter. 

D. W. Wendland and W. R. Matthes, Visualicyation of Automotive Catalytic Converter Internal Flom, SAE 861554,1986 D. W. Wendland, P. L. Sorrell, and J. E. Kreucher, Sources of Monolithic Catalytic Converter Pressure Eoss, SAE 912372, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 1991. 

S. H. Oh and D. L. Van Ostrom, Three Dimensional Modelfor the Analysis of Transient Thermal and Conversional Characteristics of Monolithic Catalytic Converters, SAE 880282, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 1988. 

From isotherm measurements, usually earried out on small quantities of adsorbent, the methane uptake per unit mass of adsorbent is obtained. Sinee storage in a fixed volnme is dependent on the uptake per unit volume of adsorbent and not on the uptake per unit mass of adsorbent, it is neeessary to eonvert the mass uptake to a volume uptake. In this way an estimate of the possible storage capacity of an adsorbent can be made. To do this, the mass uptake has to be multiplied by the density of the adsorbent. Ihis density, for a powdered or granular material, should be the packing (bulk) density of the adsorbent, or the piece density if the adsorbent is in the form of a monolith. Thus a carbon adsorbent which adsorbs 150 mg methane per gram at 3.5 MPa and has a packed density of 0.50 g/ml, would store 75 g methane per liter plus any methane which is in the gas phase in the void or macropore volume. This can be multiplied by 1.5 to convert to the more popular unit, V/V. 

Diffusion effects can be expected in reactions that are very rapid. A great deal of effort has been made to shorten the diffusion path, which increases the efficiency of the catalysts. Pellets are made with all the active ingredients concentrated on a thin peripheral shell and monoliths are made with very thin washcoats containing the noble metals. In order to convert 90% of the CO from the inlet stream at a residence time of no more than 0.01 sec, one needs a first-order kinetic rate constant of about 230 sec-1. When the catalytic activity is distributed uniformly through a porous pellet of 0.15 cm radius with a diffusion coefficient of 0.01 cm2/sec, one obtains a Thiele modulus y> = 22.7. This would yield an effectiveness factor of 0.132 for a spherical geometry, and an apparent kinetic rate constant of 30.3 sec-1 (106). 

Provided that the catalyst is active enough, there will be sufficient conversion of the pollutant gases through the pellet bed and the screen bed. The Sherwood number of CO is almost equal to the Nusselt number, and 2.6% of the inlet CO will not be converted in the monolith. The diffusion coefficient of benzene is somewhat smaller, and 10% of the inlet benzene is not converted in the monolith, no matter how active is the catalyst. This mass transfer limitation can be easily avoided by forcing the streams to change flow direction at the cost of some increased pressure drop. These calculations are comparable with the data in Fig. 22, taken from Carlson 112). 

Many elements of a mathematical model of the catalytic converter are available in the classical chemical reactor engineering literature. There are also many novel features in the automotive catalytic converter that need further analysis or even new formulations the transient analysis of catalytic beds, the shallow pellet bed, the monolith and the stacked and rolled screens, the negative order kinetics of CO oxidation over platinum,... 

There is a general trend toward structured packings and monoliths, particularly in demanding applications such as automotive catalytic converters. In principle, the steady-state performance of such reactors can be modeled using Equations (9.1) and (9.3). However, the parameter estimates in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 and Equations (9.6)-(9.7) were developed for random packings, and even the boundary condition of Equation (9.4) may be inappropriate for monoliths or structured packings. Also, at least for automotive catalytic converters. 

The catalytic converter on a car uses a precious-metal-based, solid catalyst, usually in the form of a monolith, to convert unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. Many different reactants are converted to two products CO2 and water. 

In this paper, we first briefly describe both the single-channel 1-D model and the more comprehensive 3-D model, with particular emphasis on the comparison of the features included and their capabilities/limitations. We then discuss some examples of model applications to illustrate how the monolith models can be used to provide guidance in emission control system design and implementation. This will be followed by brief discussion of future research needs and directions in catalytic converter modeling, including the development of elementary reaction step-based kinetic models. 

At the heart of an automotive catalytic converter is a catalyzed monolith which consists of a large number of parallel channels in the flow direction whose walls are coated with a thin layer of catalyzed washcoat. The monolith catalyst brick is wrapped with mat, steel shell and insulation to minimize exhaust gas bypassing and heat loss to the surroundings. 

Our earlier converter modeling study [3] has shown that during the cold-start period (when a cold monolith converter is suddenly exposed to hot exhaust gas), the upstream section of the monolith is first heated up to the reaction temperatures by the hot exhaust, leading to converter lightoff, and that the reaction is confined to a small fraction of the total... 

---