Reactor comparisons graphical comparison

Five percent random error was added to the error-free dataset to make the simulation more realistic. Data for kinetic analysis are presented in Table 6.4.3 (Berty 1989), and were given to the participants to develop a kinetic model for design purposes. For a more practical comparison, participants were asked to simulate the performance of a well defined shell and tube reactor of industrial size at well defined process conditions. Participants came from 8 countries and a total of 19 working groups. Some submitted more than one model. The explicit models are listed in loc.cit. and here only those results that can be graphically presented are given. 

This section is divided into three parts. The first is a comparison between the experimental data reported by Wisseroth (].)for semibatch polymerization and the calculations of the kinetic model GASPP. The comparisons are largely graphical, with data shown as point symbols and model calculations as solid curves. The second part is a comparison between some semibatch reactor results and the calculations of the continuous model C0NGAS. Finally, the third part discusses the effects of certain important process variables on catalyst yields and production rates, based on the models. 

The comparison is made by calculating the residence times required for a particular value of fraction conversion. This allows a comparison of the reactor volumes for a given flow rate. Levenspiel (1972) presents graphical plots similar to those generated by this program. 

Equations 1 and 2 are displayed in graphical form in Fig. 6.1 to provide a quick comparison of the performance of plug flow with mixed flow reactors. For... 

Figure 13.19 is a graphical representation of these results in useful form, prepared by combining Eq. 19 and Eq. 5.17, and allows comparison of reactor sizes for plug and dispersed plug flow. 

This graphical construction illustrates the comparison in selectivity of CSTR and PFTR. If iB is an increasing function of conversion, then the CSTR gives a higher selectivity for a given conversion than a PFTR (but with a larger reactor required). 

With measurements made in a differential reactor, the values of are obtained directly. The important step of a differential data evaluation procedure consists of a comparison between the experimental data and the hypothesis of Equ. 2.53. Usually, this is done graphically using a linearization procedure (see Sect. 2.4), as is shown in Fig. 4.17 for the general case. The function f c) represents the mathematical function that was postulated in constructing the model. With the computer, nonlinear regression methods are also a realistic alternative. 

Figure4.10.20 Comparison ofideal reactors (a) method to determine graphically the Da number needed for a certain conversion (b) X for a given Da (isothermal, first order, constant volume, N number of CSTRs of a cascade. Da — kr).

Figure 4 graphically represents the results of the xenon thermal conductivity comparison and shows the deviation of the semi-empirical method of calculating xenon thermal conductivity from the empirically derived DIPPR curve fit recommended in this paper. Figure 4 shows that NIST results track well with DIPPR results. At 1150 K (reactor outlet gas temperature) the semi-empirical approach deviates from the empirically derived DIPPR value by 9.6%. 

---