Fluid‐dynamic and mass‐transfer behavior of static mixers and regular packings

Mass Transfer In Trickle‐Bed Reactors With Structured Packing

“…1, together with the mass transfer coefficients obtained with the same electrolytic solution and the active plates under tricklebed conditions (TB), i.e., with gas-liquid co-current downflow. Forced convection results were in excellent agreement with previous investigations [18,19]. As can be seen from Fig.…”

Mass Transfer In Trickle‐Bed Reactors With Structured Packing

“…1, together with the mass transfer coefficients obtained with the same electrolytic solution and the active plates under tricklebed conditions (TB), i.e., with gas-liquid co-current downflow. Forced convection results were in excellent agreement with previous investigations [18,19]. As can be seen from Fig.…”

An improved correlation for dry pressure losses across static mixers at high Reynolds numbers

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [ 28 ] Cavatorta et al, [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] were included in the analysis. For the model of Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] the values of porosity () and the mixer channel hydraulic diameter were identical to those in Table 3.…”

“…For the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al, [ 30 ] the values of (edge length of plate corrugation) were extracted directly from the CAD files of the mixers. The sand grain roughness of the mixer elements was also determined from the materials of construction, and the roughness of the pipe housing was determined by measuring pressure loss in the empty pipe housing without mixers and fitting it to the Colebrook–White equation.…”

“…[ 28 ] At Reynolds numbers greater than 50 000, all the available literature models were unable to predict the pressure loss characteristics accurately. In particular, Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] report data only up to a Reynolds number of 40 000, whereas the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] are limited for Reynolds numbers below 10 000. It is likely that all the literature models are limited by being formulated primarily on low Reynolds number data.…”

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [28] Cavatorta et al, [29] F I G U R E 6 Example of streamlines calculated from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the calculation of tortuosity: (top) two mixing elements (aligned); (bottom) two mixing elements (rotated) F I G U R E 7 Sensitivity analysis for tortuosity calculation procedure for 1-in. case with two aligned mixer elements and Bravo et al [30] were included in the analysis.…”

Mass Transfer In Trickle‐Bed Reactors With Structured Packing

“…1, together with the mass transfer coefficients obtained with the same electrolytic solution and the active plates under tricklebed conditions (TB), i.e., with gas-liquid co-current downflow. Forced convection results were in excellent agreement with previous investigations [18,19]. As can be seen from Fig.…”

An improved correlation for dry pressure losses across static mixers at high Reynolds numbers

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [ 28 ] Cavatorta et al, [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] were included in the analysis. For the model of Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] the values of porosity () and the mixer channel hydraulic diameter were identical to those in Table 3.…”

“…For the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al, [ 30 ] the values of (edge length of plate corrugation) were extracted directly from the CAD files of the mixers. The sand grain roughness of the mixer elements was also determined from the materials of construction, and the roughness of the pipe housing was determined by measuring pressure loss in the empty pipe housing without mixers and fitting it to the Colebrook–White equation.…”

“…[ 28 ] At Reynolds numbers greater than 50 000, all the available literature models were unable to predict the pressure loss characteristics accurately. In particular, Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] report data only up to a Reynolds number of 40 000, whereas the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] are limited for Reynolds numbers below 10 000. It is likely that all the literature models are limited by being formulated primarily on low Reynolds number data.…”

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [28] Cavatorta et al, [29] F I G U R E 6 Example of streamlines calculated from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the calculation of tortuosity: (top) two mixing elements (aligned); (bottom) two mixing elements (rotated) F I G U R E 7 Sensitivity analysis for tortuosity calculation procedure for 1-in. case with two aligned mixer elements and Bravo et al [30] were included in the analysis.…”

Mass Transfer In Trickle‐Bed Reactors With Structured Packing

“…1, together with the mass transfer coefficients obtained with the same electrolytic solution and the active plates under tricklebed conditions (TB), i.e., with gas-liquid co-current downflow. Forced convection results were in excellent agreement with previous investigations [18,19]. As can be seen from Fig.…”

An improved correlation for dry pressure losses across static mixers at high Reynolds numbers

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [ 28 ] Cavatorta et al, [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] were included in the analysis. For the model of Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] the values of porosity () and the mixer channel hydraulic diameter were identical to those in Table 3.…”

“…For the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al, [ 30 ] the values of (edge length of plate corrugation) were extracted directly from the CAD files of the mixers. The sand grain roughness of the mixer elements was also determined from the materials of construction, and the roughness of the pipe housing was determined by measuring pressure loss in the empty pipe housing without mixers and fitting it to the Colebrook–White equation.…”

“…[ 28 ] At Reynolds numbers greater than 50 000, all the available literature models were unable to predict the pressure loss characteristics accurately. In particular, Paglianti and Montante [ 28 ] report data only up to a Reynolds number of 40 000, whereas the models of Cavatorta et al [ 29 ] and Bravo et al [ 30 ] are limited for Reynolds numbers below 10 000. It is likely that all the literature models are limited by being formulated primarily on low Reynolds number data.…”

“…The pressure loss data we aggregated and plotted against other currently available literature models. The models of Paglianti and Montante, [28] Cavatorta et al, [29] F I G U R E 6 Example of streamlines calculated from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the calculation of tortuosity: (top) two mixing elements (aligned); (bottom) two mixing elements (rotated) F I G U R E 7 Sensitivity analysis for tortuosity calculation procedure for 1-in. case with two aligned mixer elements and Bravo et al [30] were included in the analysis.…”