How to use the GBHE Reactor Technology Guides

GBH Enterprises, Ltd.

Process Engineering Guide:
GBHE-PEG-RXT-800

How to use the GBHE Reactor
Technology Guides

Information contained in this publication or as otherwise supplied to Users is
believed to be accurate and correct at time of going to press, and is given in
good faith, but it is for the User to satisfy itself of the suitability of the information
for its own particular purpose. GBHE gives no warranty as to the fitness of this
information for any particular purpose and any implied warranty or condition
(statutory or otherwise) is excluded except to the extent that exclusion is
prevented by law. GBHE will accept no liability resulting from reliance on this
information. Freedom under Patent, Copyright and Designs cannot be assumed.

Refinery Process Stream Purification Refinery Process Catalysts Troubleshooting Refinery Process Catalyst Start-Up / Shutdown
Activation Reduction In-situ Ex-situ Sulfiding Specializing in Refinery Process Catalyst Performance Evaluation Heat & Mass
Balance Analysis Catalyst Remaining Life Determination Catalyst Deactivation Assessment Catalyst Performance
Characterization Refining & Gas Processing & Petrochemical Industries Catalysts / Process Technology - Hydrogen Catalysts /
Process Technology – Ammonia Catalyst Process Technology - Methanol Catalysts / process Technology – Petrochemicals
Specializing in the Development & Commercialization of New Technology in the Refining & Petrochemical Industries
Web Site: www.GBHEnterprises.com

Process Engineering Guide:

How to Use the GBHE
Reactor Technology Guides

CONTENTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE
SCOPE
FIELD OF APPLICATION
DEFINITIONS
BACKGROUND
THE DECISION TREE
GBHE REACTION ENGINEERING

2
2
2
2
3
3
3

7

GENERAL ASPECTS OF REACTOR TECHGNOLOGY

7

7.1 Criteria of Reactor Performance
7.2 Factors of Economic Importance
7.3 Physicochemical Mechanisms
8

GENERAL GUIDE TO SELECTION OF REACTOR TYPE
AND OPERATION
8.1 Choice of Reactor Type
8.2 Reaction Mechanism and Kinetics
8.3 Thermodynamics
8.4 Other Factors

9

GENERAL REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF
INFORMATION

7
7
8

13
13
13
14
16

22


APPENDICES
A

RELATIONSHIP BEWTEEN DEFINED TERMS

23

FIGURES
1
2
3

DECISION TREE
RELATIVE YIELDS OF B FOR BATCH (OR PLUG FLOW)
AND CST REACTORS
REACTOR SURVEY FORM

DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THIS PROCESS
ENGINEERING GUIDE

4
10
18

24


0

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE

This Guide is one in a series on Reactor Technology produced GBH
Enterprises.
The guides are intended to assist in the qualitative and quantitative
understanding of the behavior of chemical and biochemical reactors. They are
generally aimed at the formulation of a mathematical model of the physical and
chemical phenomena occurring in a reactor. More often than not, the solution will
require the use of a computer.
It is not intended that the guides should substitute for the many excellent
textbooks in Reaction Engineering, but rather to provide a collection of
information which people in GBH Enterprises have found to be helpful in
practice. It should be useful when:
(a)

modifying the performance of an existing reactor within its process, or

(b)

designing a new reactor.

The series of guides on Reactor Technology do not claim to be comprehensive.
There are gaps because no one within GBH Enterprises was found to have
experience which would add to, or select key aspects from, information available
in the open literature.
The Guides assume that the user is familiar with the general text book material
and with the fundamentals of model formulation.

1

SCOPE

This Guide provides an overview of the guides available in the area of Reactor
Technology and directs the user to the individual guides appropriate to his/her
problem.
A decision tree is presented to aid the user in identifying the most appropriate
guides.
The general aspects of reactor technology are described.
None of the guides covers the detailed mechanical design of reactors.


2

FIELD OF APPLICATION

This Guide applies to the process engineering community in the GBH
Enterprises world-wide.

3

DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Guide, the following definitions apply:
Conversion

The number of moles of a key reactant which have reacted
divided by the total number of moles of the key reactant fed
to the reactor.

Operational
Yield

The number of moles of a key reactant transformed into a
desired product divided by the total number of moles
of the key component fed to the reactor.

Selectivity

The number of moles of a key reactant transformed into
desired product divided by the number of moles of the key
reactant transformed into unwanted products.

Yield

The number of moles of a key reactant transformed into
desired product divided by the total moles of the key reactant
which have reacted.

The relationships between the above terms and a diagrammatic representation
are given in Appendix A.
With the exception of terms used as proper nouns or titles, those terms with initial
capital letters which appear in this document and are not defined above are
defined in the Glossary of Engineering Terms.


4

BACKGROUND

Reaction Engineering is unique in the discipline of process engineering in that it
displays an immense variety of controlling mechanisms which may act on their
own or in combination. In the simpler cases a single mechanism dominates; e.g.
heat or mass transfer or homogeneous reaction kinetics. In the more intractable
situations, transport phenomena and kinetics combine to produce systems of
considerable mathematical complexity. The aim of the guides is to help
the user identify and then formulate the problem so that a solution can be
obtained.
Since the majority of industrial reactors are operated without detailed
physicochemical understanding of the processes involved, the reactor analyst or
designer has to identify these before he/she can start to formulate a suitable
model. The stage has not yet been reached where there are general purpose
computer programs available, into which data can be fed to obtain a rating
calculation as, for instance, in heat transfer. Nor can reactor analysis or design
be reduced to a series of simple steps which any inexperienced person can
safely follow. Often a specific simulation program will have to be written and this
series of guides will hopefully provide some of the building blocks and tools for
this task.

5

THE DECISION TREE

A logic diagram in the form of a decision tree is shown in Figure 1 to direct the
user to the individual Guides in this series and in some cases to specific clauses
within these Guides.
Particular attention is drawn to the contents of a general nature in the following
Guides:
GBH Enterprises

Reactor Dynamics, Control and Safety which
includes a collection of case histories
describing dangerous incidents;

GBHE-PEG-RXT-816

Case Studies in Reactor Technology which
contains reactor development case studies;

GBHE-PEG-RXT-811

New Reactor Technology which draws
attention to new types of reactor.


Users should also consult the relevant Process SHE Guides, especially No. 8,
Part A Section 3 on inherent safety and alternatives to pressure relief, Part B on
causes of relief situations and Part E on discharge and disposal system design.
Safety and environmental considerations can have a very significant effect on
both reactor design and process economics. Users should therefore take these
into account at an early stage in the reactor selection and design phases. An
add-on solution is usually much more expensive and may not get authorization
under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as the best environmental option.


FIGURE 1

DECISION TREE


FIGURE 1

DECISION TREE (Continued)


7

GENERAL ASPECTS OF REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

7.1

Criteria of Reactor Performance

Yield, Conversion and (in polymerization reactions) degree of polymerization
constitute the most common criteria for judging the performance of chemical
reactors. Definitions of these criteria (and associated quantities such as
Selectivity and Operational Yield) are frequently technology dependent.
It is therefore imperative that the reactor analyst familiarize himself with the
meaning of such terms in the technological context and does not assume text
book or Clause 3 definitions. Ambiguities arise not only from day to day sloppy
usage but also out of genuine semantic difficulties. An example of the former
category is the term conversion which may refer either to conversion to a desired
product or conversion of reactants (to both products and side reactions).
Semantic difficulties arise when reactants yield products which are not single well
defined substances but mixtures whose constituents may not be analyzed
separately and whose uses are determined by the aggregate properties of the
mixture. Often in such cases, chemists will (for convenience) calculate "yields"
based on an analysis which is referred to the molecular weight of a notional
simple (predominant) compound. For example in reactions aimed at substitution
in aromatics, isomers and/or multiple substituted products can be formed;
analyses picking up the total of substituted groups may be adequate for the
product characterization (particularly where all groups are reactive) but totally
inadequate for a characterization of the reaction mechanisms and kinetics. It is
all too easy for such analytic conveniences to become assumed knowledge
which is not immediately made privy to workers new to the technology; this
can result in considerable wasted effort and frustration.
In the case of polymerization reactions, limitations of chemical analysis often
preclude molecular weight distribution measurements, consequently performance
must be judged on some mean molecular weight / degree of polymerization
criterion determined from an overall property measurement (e.g. viscosity of
melt/solution).
Where both Yield and Conversion data are available the reactor designer/analyst
is in a good position to quantify kinetic and Selectivity effects. In real life
situations such data are rarely obtainable. Batch reactions are frequently set up
to convert substantially 100% of the "important" precursor and here product Yield
is optimized. Where such high Conversions are not possible both Yield and
Conversion may be open to optimization. Conversely in many continuous
reactors Yield estimation (on an instantaneous basis) is difficult due to
inadequate precision in flow measurement and chemical analyses. In these

situations Conversion is monitored as an hour-to-hour measure of reactor
performance. In such circumstances Yield estimates result from periodic stock
analyses which are insensitive to short term changes in operating conditions.
The inability to quantify fully reaction problems is largely responsible for the
substantial lag between established reaction engineering theory and its
application to industrial situations. Gathering of data, even with the sophisticated
tools now available, consumes valuable time and effort, commodities rarely
available within the time allocated to solve industrial problems. A methodology is
presented which ensures efficient data gathering by prompting the correct
questions and thereby revealing the minimum amount of data necessary for
solution of a specific problem. The terms Yield and Conversion will be assumed
to refer to the definitions in Clause 3. As discussed above, the user should
establish for himself any departures from this terminology which might apply in
his problem.
Where a product of the reaction is a solid, physical form may be an important
criterion of performance.

72

Factors of Economic Importance

Chemical reactor design and engineering attempts the successful exploitation of
chemical reactions on a commercial scale. It is very rare that only the capital and
variable costs associated with the reactor are the dominant feature of a process
plant economic evaluation. Usually the operating conditions of the reactor have
considerable influence on the surrounding process plant and product
specification, and the process designer needs to consider the influence of
varying the reaction conditions and reactor type and design on the rest of the
plant.
Successful design of the chemical reactor requires understanding of what a
reactor can produce and which of the design options is the most favorable. Close
co-operation is required between the process engineer and chemist or
biochemist in order to obtain an adequate understanding and description of the
reaction scheme and how products vary with conditions, and hence can
be controlled to meet needs. While the time constants of reactions remain
virtually independent of reactor size, most chemical engineering parameters
change with vessel size, and control of the reaction environment becomes a
function of bulk flow, mixing and turbulence. Knowledge of the reactor system
and its constraints allows performance to be assessed in real (i.e. less than
ideal) reactor systems.

It is usually found that when a process involves chemical conversion or synthesis
the optimum conversion is not 100%. Varying reactor conditions will permit a
design optimization of reactant preparation and presentation, product separation
and purification and recycle of unconverted reactants. A strong intuitive sense of
reactor choice and good process design guided by and reinforced by formal
optimization methods, will help in putting together a viable and economic
process. The reaction scheme will almost certainly permit a conversion anywhere
in the range 0-100% by varying reaction conditions. Testing the whole plant
design over that range is recommended. In particular, the assumptions about
reactor design should be tested when repeating existing processes. A radically
improved whole plant design concept can often be found by moving away from
historic design points in the reactor systems.
Further information is given in GBHE-PEG-RXT-801.
7.3

Physicochemical Mechanisms

The probability that a molecule is changed chemically is determined by its state
and usually also by its environment. For gases, it is possible to calculate the
number of collisions a molecule has in a given time with other molecules and with
the walls of the container. Only a tiny fraction of such collisions result in a
chemical change. The sort of molecules with which it collides is determined by
molecular diffusion and convection, and so these factors have a profound effect
on reaction. Collectively, these factors are termed DISPERSION.
In continuous reactor theory, two idealized reactors are postulated. In the "plug
flow" reactor the assumption is made that the reactants enter in a fully mixed
state and go through the reactor in such a way that there is zero mixing in the
direction of flow and infinite mixing at right angles to the direction of flow. The
reacting fluid goes through the reactor in rod-like flow. Velocity profile is flat. Axial
dispersion is zero, radial dispersion is infinite. Ideal batch and plug flow reactors
have identical mathematics. In both plug flow and batch reactors, reactant can be
added part way along the length/time, though full mixing occurs at the point of
addition. At the other extreme the "fully back-mixed" reactor (ideal continuous
stirred tank reactor CSTR) assumes that the reaction space is totally mixed.
Some molecules leave the reactor an instant after entry, while some others,
having got in, never leave. The environment of the molecules is constant with
time but molecules are exposed to it for a distribution of time. Dispersion is
infinite.


Neither ideal reactor is exactly realized in practice. The degree of departure is a
function of the relative rates of dispersion and reaction, and of the hydrodynamic
conditions. If reaction is fast, it is extremely difficult to approach a CSTR. On the
other hand, if the reaction is slow, it is more difficult to produce a plug flow
reactor, although this difficulty disappears with batch reactors.
Generally, the reaction mechanism indicates the sort of ideal reactor suited to
achieving the best result in terms of material efficiencies. The reactor design
problem is to specify to hardware which sufficiently approximates to one or other
of the ideals, within the constraints of practicable ways of producing the
dispersion required. Heat transfer requirements also affect the design.
As a simple example, consider the reaction scheme:

where the two reactions are first order. For a batch reaction, reaction rates are
given by:

where:

CA, CB and CC are concentrations of materials A, B and C;
CA0 is concentration of A at time zero;
t is time;
k1 and k2 are reaction rate constants


When k 1 = k 2 , the reaction path for isothermal plug (or batch) and fully backmixed reactors can be illustrated as in Figure 2. This shows the value of CB at
any value of CA. The reaction starts on the right at CA/CA0 =1 and moves to the
left towards CA/CA0 =0. It can be seen that for any given value of CA/CA0 (i.e. 1conversion) the yield of B would be greater in a plug flow reactor than in a CSTR.
Conversely, the yield of C would be lower.
For a reaction scheme:

where again the two reactions are first order; i.e.

the yields of B and C for a given conversion of A in an isothermal reactor are not
affected by reactor type.
This qualitative picture would be true whether or not k1 = k 2 which was assumed
merely for the purpose of illustration.


FIGURE 2

RELATIVE YIELDS OF B FOR BATCH (OR PLUG FLOW) AND
CST REACTORS


where n1 and n2 are the orders of reactions 1 and 2 with respect to component B.
If n1 > n2 then yield of C is enhanced by high concentrations of B and vice versa.
Yield of C is clearly a function of the mixing of A and B. An illuminating
discussion of these matters may be found in Levenspiel (1974) Chapter 7.
Remarks so far have been aimed at single phase reactors. When a second or
third phase is present, interphase mass and heat transfer are superimposed on
the effects already discussed, further complicating the picture. The chemical
reaction generally increases the departure of the phases from physical
equilibrium in comparison with the departure which would exist in the
absence of reaction. The difference can vary from negligible for relatively slow
reactions, to dominating when reactions are very fast. In the latter case, the
physical rate processes are said to be controlling, since they control the
environment surrounding the sites where the reactions take place. The general
effect would be to denude the site of primary reactant molecules and flood it with
product molecules. This environment is of course different to the bulk phase
conditions, which may affect conversion and yield.
If reliable technical calculations are to be done, it is important to be in a position
to judge the magnitude of the contribution of dispersion, hydrodynamics,
chemical kinetics and interphase mass and heat transfer to the reactor
performance. Considerable work is reported in the literature which allows
estimates of the physical processes to be made.

However, at the present time, there is no way of calculating a priori the rate
constants of chemical reactions to anywhere near the same degree of reliability,
and these have to be evaluated from laboratory or plant measurements.
Plant data are usually of limited value for a number of reasons. Absolute
accuracy is not a requirement for plant instrumentation and upgrading is often
required before even an acceptable mass and heat balance has been obtained.
The range that experimental variables can be allowed to take is also limited.
However, very useful results have been achieved by fitting model equations of
the right general shape to plant data and then using the model for relatively
small extrapolations.
Laboratory experimentation must be aimed at producing data when dispersion
and physical and chemical mechanisms are separately quantifiable. Chemical
kinetic information should be obtained from an apparatus which approximates
closely to one of the two ideal reactors, i.e. plug flow/batch, or CSTR. A CSTR
has the advantage that rate data can be measured directly as a function of
composition temperature and pressure. Such results may themselves give a
clue as to the most suitable form of kinetic expression. Data from a plug flow or
batch reactor can only be analyzed by comparing with the mathematical
integration of some possible kinetic expressions. However, if measurements
along the profile of the reaction are taken, more data can be obtained per run
from a plug flow or batch reactor than from a CSTR.
In achieving approach to an ideal reactor and/or in eliminating other physical
processes from control the general principle is to adjust reaction fluid convection
or mass/heat transfer path length until they no longer have an effect on the
measured reaction rates. The following table indicates the steps which can be
taken:


If experiment showed a significant difference in reaction rate by varying those
conditions indicated while keeping temperature, residence time etc. constant,
then this would indicate control by physical processes to a significant degree,
and the conditions at the reaction site would not correspond to the local bulk
conditions observed in the reactor. True chemical kinetics can only be measured
either when all physical control is eliminated, or when the physical processes are
accurately modeled.
It was mentioned earlier that physical process rate constants can often be
calculated with reasonable confidence. This means that in multiphase reactors,
maximum possible rates and gradients can be calculated. For instance fluidparticle mass and heat transfer coefficients and effective thermal conductivities
can be estimated for packed beds. Clearly, maximum consumption rate of
reactant would occur for "zero back pressure"; i.e. for infinitely fast reaction.
From the mass and heat convection transfer analogy, the maximum difference
between particle surface temperature and fluid temperature can be calculated.
Knowing particle thermal conductivity, the temperature gradient at the surface
can be calculated, which is a maximum for the particle. Knowing bed
conductivity, maximum temperature variation in the bed can be estimated. So,
much can be done on paper to identify possible physical control mechanisms.
The reader is now referred to GBHE-PEG-RXT-801 for a more detailed
quantitative discussion of these effects.


8

GENERAL GUIDE TO SELECTION OF REACTOR TYPE
AND OPERATION

8.1

Choice of Reactor Type

Many factors arise in the choice between batch, semi-batch and continuous
operation. The decision trees embody a number of heuristics and it is appropriate
to expand some of the reasoning. Much of the fine chemicals manufacturing area
involves low tonnage (less than a few thousand tonnes per annum, frequently
very much less), limited life products made in general purpose plant. Typically
many synthesis steps are involved (e.g. giving rise to 6-8 intermediates). Some
of these synthesis steps may be classified as "unit processes of organic
synthesis" (e.g. nitration, sulfonation, amination, reduction, etc.), and are
accommodated in plant which is purpose-built for such operations. The various
chemical substrates involved in these unit processes, give rise to widely
disparate reactivities, to such an extent that continuous operation designs are not
possible. Furthermore, the work-up processes for isolation, purification and
(where appropriate) recycle are also product specific. In such circumstances it
is inappropriate to apply the batch versus continuous criteria of improved
productivity, lower capital and intensive operation to products in isolation. Even in
circumstances where continuous operation is indicated, process development
time versus product life, the problems of online measurement and control, feed,
product and intermediate storage requirements must be fully assessed.
Conversely there will be special applications where process inventory hazard
assessments point the way towards small, intensive continuous processing in
circumstances which would not be otherwise indicated.

8.2

Reaction Mechanism and Kinetics

If the reaction mechanism for production of desired product B is simply

then Yield of B at any Conversion of A will be equal to unity and will not be
affected by reactor type. It is very rare for this simple mechanism to apply. If the
mechanism is complicated by even a single further step, Yield of B per unit
Conversion of A (YB) will be less than unity. This is because either parallel
competing reactions are consuming feed reactant, or consecutive competing
reactions are consuming product, or both. Schematically this can be shown:

The general rule is that reactions having higher orders are favored by higher
reactant concentrations, and reactions having higher activation energies are
favored by higher temperature. In terms of Yield, if the desired reaction has the
highest order, then a PFR would be best; if it has the lowest order then a CSTR
may be best. If both reactions of mechanism 2 shown above are of the same
order (except zero) then YB will be higher in a PFR than in a CSTR. If both
reactions are the same order in mechanism 1, then YB is not affected by reactor
type. If activation energy for reaction 1 is greater than for reaction 2, then YB for
mechanism 1 will increase with temperature for all Conversions of A.

In the case of mechanism 2, and with E2 greater than E1, YB would be favored
by a temperature falling as A is converted. Special techniques are available for
calculating optimum temperature profiles. In the absence of chemical kinetic
information, the effect of changing temperature over the reaction path may be
difficult to predict but at least the trends with a rising or falling profile are easily
identifiable by doing the two experiments in the laboratory. It is often the case
that the reaction mechanism will consist of several parallel (mechanism 1) and
consecutive (mechanism 2) reactions of various orders and activation energies
and the picture can rapidly become unclear which of the two basic reactor types
best favors yield.
But given the kinetics, the situation can be examined easily either by using
commercially available programs or by writing a simple computer program to
simulate the kinetics in ideal reactors. Of course, Yield is not the sole criterion for
selection of reactor type. Except for zero order reactions, the volume of an
isothermal PFR is always less than that of a CSTR operating at the same
temperature and to the same conversion, from considerations of reactant
concentrations. It may be that when overall process costs are compared for PFR
and CSTR, the PFR will win even when it is at a Yield disadvantage.
Temperature has already been indicated to be a key and possibly overriding
parameter and this is further considered in the next section.

8.3

Thermodynamics

The approximate adiabatic temperature change can be calculated from:


See GBHE-PEG-RXT-801 for acquisition of data.
If ΔT is not too large, then an adiabatic reactor is feasible. If it is too large it may
be possible to reduce it by feeding inert fluid to the reactor, thus proportionately
reducing the concentration terms in equation 1 and possibly modifying other
terms. Alternatively the overall ΔT could be reduced by operating several
adiabatic reactors in series with interstage heat exchange. In PFR, the feed
temperature must be high enough for the reaction to start; for exothermic
reactions the obvious danger is that the reaction could run away. This danger
increases as the activation energy increases. There is no way of predicting, in
the absence of kinetic information, whether this will occur, but the maximum
possible temperature should be calculated from the above equation, setting CA
and C'A to zero or to the values for chemical equilibrium, and a judgment made
as to whether this can be tolerated or dealt with in some way. If the reaction is
endothermic in PFR the less dramatic danger is that the reaction would die.
Again it is impossible to predict if kinetic data are unavailable. The CSTR has the
advantage that the whole reactor operates at one temperature so that the
adiabatic reactor feed temperature can be calculated from:

For particularly sensitive reactions it may be possible to operate a CSTR for the
initial and dangerous part of the reaction, and follow it with a PFR to complete the
more easily controllable part. Reaction temperature can only be selected in the
light of kinetic information, except when it is known that the reactions are so fast
that chemical equilibrium is achieved.


Chemical equilibrium constants and their variations with temperature, can be
calculated from thermodynamic data (see GBHE-PEG-RXT-801). Equilibrium adiabatic temperature change information can be shown very conveniently in
graphical form:

If it is judged that adiabatic operation is not feasible, then the reactor design must
incorporate heat transfer through some surface in the reactor. The PFR is usually
in the form of a long thin tube and it is convenient to pass heat through the tube
wall to or from some heat transfer medium. The CSTR may be in the form of an
agitated tank, and in this case, internal coils, jacket, or external heat exchanger
with pump circulation or condensing vapor and refluxing condensate are the
norm.
Reaction heat should be used to adjust the temperature of feed streams. This is
essentially what happens in a CSTR. It may be possible to use the feed stream
of a PFR to do at least part of the heat exchange for the reactor, but
supplementary exchange may be necessary for dealing with emergencies.
Before leaving the consideration of the thermal requirements, it is essential to
say that attention must be paid to dealing with dynamics of the reactor; i.e. startup, shutdown and control. It may also be necessary to consider how the reaction
is to be stopped, i.e. quenched, at the reactor exit. In the foregoing, no mention
of pressure has been made. This is because concentration has been defined in
units of kmol/m3 which for gases is pressure dependent. Where there is a
change of phase, then the temperature is a direct function of pressure, and of
course would be incorporated in this way.

The implied need for vapor pressure data could be extended to the other physical
properties which the process engineer commonly needs for his work. The need
for consistent physical and thermodynamic data (including standard states and
datum temperatures) is emphasized.

8.4

Other Factors

It was stated at the beginning that factors other than reaction mechanism,
kinetics and thermodynamics may be overriding in choosing reactor type. This is
particularly the case in multiphase reactors. Batch, semi-batch and recirculating
loop reactors can be used for most reacting systems. When a continuous reactor
is required, the choice of equipment is much wider. The following table indicates
the sort of equipment which is practicable for various cases.


9

GENERAL REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Carberry J J (1976) Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Engineering (McGraw-Hill).
Coulson, J M and Richardson, J F (1979) Chemical Engineering Vol 3 2nd Ed.
(Pergamon Press).
Cox, J d and Pilcher, G (1970) Thermochemistry of Organic and Organometallic
Compounds (Academic Press).
Dankwerts, P V (1970) Gas-Liquid Reactions (McGraw-Hill).
Denbigh, K G (1981) The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium 4th Ed. (Cambridge
University Press).
Harris, M L (1977) Kinpak Kinetics Package User Guide CL/R/77/1202/A.
Westerkerp, K R van Swaaij; W P M and Beenackers, A A C M (1984) Chemical
Reactor Design and Operation (John Wiley).
Lapidus, L and Amundson, N R (1977) Chemical Reactor Theory, A Review
(Prentice-Hall).
Levenspiel, O (1974) Chemical Reaction Engineering 2nd Ed. (John Wiley).
Rase, H F (1977) Chemical Reactor Design for Process Plants Vols. 1 and 2
(John Wiley).
Reid, R C; Prausnitz, J M and Poling, B E (1987) The Properties of Gases and
Liquids 4th Ed. (McGraw-Hill).
Rose, L M (1981) Chemical Reactor Design in Practice (Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company).
Satterfield, C N (1970) Mass Transfer in Heterogeneous Catalysis (MIT Press).
Shah, Y T (1979) Gas-Liquid-Solid Reactor Design (McGraw-Hill).
Smith, J M (1981) Chemical Engineering Kinetics 3rd Ed. (McGraw-Hill).


APPENDIX A
Let

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEFINED TERMS

F

be number of moles of key reactant fed to reactor;

A

be number of moles of key reactant converted to desired
product(s);

B

be number of moles of key reactant converted to unwanted
product(s);

C

be number of moles of key reactant not reacted


DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THIS PROCESS ENGINEERING GUIDE
This Process Engineering Guide makes reference to the following documents:
GBHE ENGINEERING GUIDES
Glossary of Engineering Terms

(referred to in Clause 3)

GBHE-PEG-RXT-801

Chemical Process Conception
(referred to in Figure 1 and 7.3)

GBHE-PEG-RXT-803

Reaction Rates and Equilibria
(referred to in Figure 1 and 8.3)

GBHE-PEG-RXT-804

Physical Properties and Thermochemistry for
Reactor Technology (referred to in Figure 1)

GBHE-PEG-RXT-810

Homogeneous Reaction Gas Solid System
(referred to in Figure 1)

GBHE-PEG-RXT-810

Gas Liquid Reactors

GBHE-PEG-RXT-810

Liquid - Liquid Reactors

GBHE-PEG-RXT-811

Biochemical Reactors

GBHE-PEG-RXT-811

New Reactor Technology

GBHE-PEG-RXT-813

Case Studies in Reactor Technology

GBHE-PEG-RXT-817

Reactor Dynamics, Control and Safety
(referred to in Clause 5 and Figure 1)


OTHER DOCUMENTS
The Environmental Protection Act 1990
(referred to in Clause 5 and Figure 1).


How to use the GBHE Reactor Technology Guides

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to How to use the GBHE Reactor Technology Guides

Similar to How to use the GBHE Reactor Technology Guides (20)

More from Gerard B. Hawkins

More from Gerard B. Hawkins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to use the GBHE Reactor Technology Guides