Packed beds turbulent flow

The gas flow through tubular reactors is of particular importance because the composition at any point is influenced by the linear velocity of the gas, the size of the reactor and the size of the catalyst particles. When gas flows through a pipe at low linear velocity (low Reynolds number), the radial velocity is not uniform. As the linear velocity increases, turbulence increases and the velocity profile approaches what is called plug flow. However, in a packed bed, plug flow can never be completely attained because of the high voidage near the reactor wall. 

Flow in empty tubes has a relatively narrow band of velocities—or Reynolds numbers from 2000 to 10000—wherein the character changes from laminar to turbulent. In packed beds, even the laminar flow does not mean that motion is linear or parallel to the surface. Due to the many turns between particles, stable eddies develop and therefore the difference between laminar and turbulent flow is not as pronounced as in empty tubes. 

However, on die basis of the relation between pressure drop and die minimum fluidisation velocity of particles, the point of transition between a packed bed and a fluidised bed has been correlated by Ergun41 using (17.7.2.3). This is obtained by summing the pressure drop terms for laminar and turbulent flow regions. 

Glaser and Litt (G4) have proposed, in an extension of the above study, a model for gas-liquid flow through a b d of porous particles. The bed is assumed to consist of two basic structures which influence the fluid flow patterns (1) Void channels external to the packing, with which are associated dead-ended pockets that can hold stagnant pools of liquid and (2) pore channels and pockets, i.e., continuous and dead-ended pockets in the interior of the particles. On this basis, a theoretical model of liquid-phase dispersion in mixed-phase flow is developed. The model uses three bed parameters for the description of axial dispersion (1) Dispersion due to the mixing of streams from various channels of different residence times (2) dispersion from axial diffusion in the void channels and (3) dispersion from diffusion into the pores. The model is not applicable to turbulent flow nor to such low flow rates that molecular diffusion is comparable to Taylor diffusion. The latter region is unlikely to be of practical interest. The model predicts that the reciprocal Peclet number should be directly proportional to nominal liquid velocity, a prediction that has been confirmed by a few determinations of residence-time distribution for a wax desulfurization pilot reactor of 1-in. diameter packed with 10-14 mesh particles. 

For packed beds in either turbulent or laminar flow, the Ergun equation is often satisfactory ... 

The models of Chapter 9 contain at least one empirical parameter. This parameter is used to account for complex flow fields that are not deterministic, time-invariant, and calculable. We are specifically concerned with packed-bed reactors, turbulent-flow reactors, and static mixers (also known as motionless mixers). We begin with packed-bed reactors because they are ubiquitous within the petrochemical industry and because their mathematical treatment closely parallels that of the laminar flow reactors in Chapter 8. 

Correlations for E are not widely available. The more accurate model given in Section 9.1 is preferred for nonisothermal reactions in packed-beds. However, as discussed previously, this model degenerates to piston flow for an adiabatic reaction. The nonisothermal axial dispersion model is a conservative design methodology available for adiabatic reactions in packed beds and for nonisothermal reactions in turbulent pipeline flows. The fact that E >D provides some basis for estimating E. Recognize that the axial dispersion model is a correction to what would otherwise be treated as piston flow. Thus, even setting E=D should improve the accuracy of the predictions. 

Very refined measurements at various positions of the packed bed were made by Jolls and Hanratty (J6), who used an active sphere (electrode) in a packed bed consisting of 1-inch inert spheres. The overall mass-transfer data for the turbulent flow regime suggest a dependence of... 

In Chapter 11, we indicated that deviations from plug flow behavior could be quantified in terms of a dispersion parameter that lumped together the effects of molecular diffusion and eddy dif-fusivity. A similar dispersion parameter is usefl to characterize transport in the radial direction, and these two parameters can be used to describe radial and axial transport of matter in packed bed reactors. In packed beds, the dispersion results not only from ordinary molecular diffusion and the turbulence that exists in the absence of packing, but also from lateral deflections and mixing arising from the presence of the catalyst pellets. These effects are the dominant contributors to radial transport at the Reynolds numbers normally employed in commercial reactors. 

When running a CFD simulation, a decision must be made as to whether to use a laminar-flow or a turbulent-flow model. For many flow situations, the transition from laminar to turbulent flow with increasing flow rate is quite sharp, for example, at Re — 2100 for flow in an empty tube. For flow in a fixed bed, the situation is more complicated, with the laminar to turbulent transition taking place over a range of Re, which is dependent on the type of packing and on the position within the bed. 

In a straight pipe, the transition from streamline to turbulent flow occurs at Re 2300. For flow through packed beds, the transition occurs at a value of Rep of approximately 40. 

In a packed bed, the transition between laminar and turbulent flow occurs in the region of Rep 40 Rep is the Reynolds number based on the equivalent particle... 

Chapters 13 and 14 deal primarily with small deviations from plug flow. There are two models for this the dispersion model and the tanks-in-series model. Use the one that is comfortable for you. They are roughly equivalent. These models apply to turbulent flow in pipes, laminar flow in very long tubes, flow in packed beds, shaft kilns, long channels, screw conveyers, etc. 

Dispersion models, as just stated, are useful mainly to represent flow in empty tubes and packed beds, which is much closer to the ideal case of plug flow than to the opposite extreme of backmix flow. In empty tubes, the mixing is caused by molecular diffusion and turbulent diffusion, superposed on the velocity-profile effect. In packed beds, mixing is caused both by splitting of the fluid streams as they flow around the particles and by the variations in velocity across the bed. 

Bischoff and Levenspiel (B14) present some calculations using existing experimental data to check the above predictions about the radial coefficients. For turbulent flow in empty tubes, the data of Lynn et al. (L20) were numerically averaged across the tube, and fair agreement found with the data of Fig. 12. The same was done for the packed-bed data of Dorweiler and Fahien (D20) using velocity profile data of Schwartz and Smith (Sll), and then comparing with Fig. 11. Unfortunately, the scatter in the data precluded an accurate check of the predictions. In order to prove the relationships conclusively, more precise experimental work would be needed. Probably the best type of system for this would be one in laminar flow, since the radial and axial coefficients for the general dispersion model are definitely known each is the molecular diffusivity. 

Checks on the relationships between the axial coefficients were provided in empty tubes with laminar flow by Taylor (T2), Blackwell (B15), Bournia et al. (B19), and van Deemter, Breeder and Lauwerier (V3), and for turbulent flow by Taylor (T4) and Tichacek et al. (T8). The agreement of experiment and theory in all of these cases was satisfactory, except for the data of Boumia et al. as discussed previously, their data indicated that the simple axial-dispersed plug-flow treatment may not be valid for laminar flow of gases. Tichacek et al. found that the theoretical calculations were extremely sensitive to the velocity profile. Converse (C20), and Bischoff and Levenspiel (B14) showed that rough agreement was also obtained in packed beds. Here, of course, the theoretical calculation was very approximate because of the scatter in packed-bed velocity-profile data. 

Comparison of this with the radial dispersion data of Fig. 11 for an average packed bed (using de/dp = 0.38) shows good agreement. Notice that Eq. (84) predicts that D/udp should be independent of flow rate. From Fig. 11, this is true for the larger Reynolds numbers of fully turbulent flow. At lower Reynolds numbers, the mixing would become less random, and so it would be expected that the theory would break down. 

The up-scaling from microreactor to small monoliths principally deals with the change of geometry (from powdered to honeycomb catalyst) and fluid dynamics (from turbulent flow in packed-bed to laminar flow in monolith channels). In this respect, it involves therefore moving closer to the conditions prevailing in the real full-scale monolithic converter, while still operating, however, under well controlled laboratory conditions, involving, e.g. the use of synthetic gas mixtures. 

Data acquired by many investigators have shown a close analogy between the rates of heat and mass transfer, not only in the case of packed beds but also in other cases, such as flow through and outside tubes, and flow along flat plates. In such cases, plots of the /-factors for heat and mass transfer against the Reynolds number produce almost identical curves. Consider, for example, the case of turbulent flow through tubes. Since... 

In the Energy Research and Development Administration s SYNTHOIL process, slurries of coal in recycle oil are hydrotreated on Co-Mo/Si02 Al203 catalyst in turbulent flow, packed-bed reactors. The reaction is conducted at 2,000 to 4,000 psi and about 450° C under which conditions coal is converted to low-sulfur liquid hydrocarbons and sulfur is eliminated as E2S. 

For kinetic energy loss at high flow rates, the theory of Burke and Plummer [Ergun and Oming, 1949] assumes that the total resistance of the packed bed can be treated as the sum of the resistances of the individual particles. For the fully developed turbulent flow, the drag force acting on an isolated spherical particle is... 

---