1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0301-9322(97)88140-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Origin of disturbances in cocurrent gas-liquid packed bed flows

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These periodic components are no longer observed for higher liquid velocities. This behavior is very different from the one found for a conventional TBR with random packing, where the pulsing flow is clearly identified from the appearance of pulses at regular intervals, which increase their frequency as the fluid velocities are increased (Helwick et al, 1992;Krieg et al, 1995;Horowitz et al, 1997).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These periodic components are no longer observed for higher liquid velocities. This behavior is very different from the one found for a conventional TBR with random packing, where the pulsing flow is clearly identified from the appearance of pulses at regular intervals, which increase their frequency as the fluid velocities are increased (Helwick et al, 1992;Krieg et al, 1995;Horowitz et al, 1997).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 86%
“…For example, Frank et al (1999) did not observe a trickling-pulsing flow transition in a TBR packed with SPs for the same conditions where they did observe a change in the conventional TBR. In the last decade, many articles have put in evidence that features of time series of characteristic variables, mainly pressure fluctuations, measured in different multiphase reactors constitute robust objective tools capable of diagnosing sharp variations in the underlying dynamics as those found in flow regime transitions (Helwick et al, 1992;Krieg et al, 1995;Horowitz et al, 1997;Letzel et al, 1997;Daw et al, 1998;van Ommen et al, 2000;Johnsson et al, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%