Slow‐mode induced pulsing in trickle‐bed reactors at elevated temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Periodic operation, as a process intensification measure for trickle beds, is still tepidly greeted by industry despite numerous benefits underlined in the literature. This state of aloofness is partly ascribed to the paucity of experimental data acquired under elevated temperature and pressure, which, in practice, most catalytic reactions are subjected to. Currently, the hydrodynamics of trickle bed periodic operation at elevated temperature and pressure remains by and large an uncharted territory. This study specifically approaches from a hydrodynamic perspective the pros and cons of slow‐mode induced pulsing for Newtonian and non‐Newtonian power‐law liquids at elevated temperature and moderate pressure. Four morphological features of the liquid holdup periodic pattern were analyzed: shock wave breakthrough, shock wave decay times, shock wave plateau, and shock wave breakthrough amplitude. The shock wave decay and breakthrough times were found to shorten, while correspondingly the shock wave plateau to lengthen, with increasing pressure and temperature. Conversely, the breakthrough amplitude of the shock wave underwent palpable collapse the higher the temperature (and/or pressure). The collapse of the bursting pulses with increasing temperatures and pressures was the result of the reduction of base and pulse liquid holdup levels, delivery of liquid cargo from pulse to baseline flow, and occurrence of dispersive hydrodynamic effects with a tendency to flatten the pulses. Qualitatively, similar effects of temperature and pressure were equally observed whether Newtonian or non‐Newtonian liquids were used. The less sensational contrasts prevailing between base and pulse holdups might question the opportunity for implementing induced pulsing strategies in high‐temperature, high‐pressure tall trickle beds. © 2006 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2006
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".