Cited by 41Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous MediaComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsCombustion and flame dynamics

In situ adaptive tabulation for the CFD simulation of heterogeneous reactors based on operator‐splitting algorithm

Bracconi, Mauro, Maestri, Matteo, Cuoci, Alberto·2017·AIChE Journal

Abstract

In situ Adaptive Tabulation algorithm is applied to efficiently solve the chemical substep in the context of the simulation of heterogeneous reactors. A numerical strategy—specifically conceived for unsteady simulation of catalytic devices—has been developed and interfaced, in the context of the operator splitting technique, with the solution of the chemical substep, which requires 70–90% of the total computational time. The algorithm performances have been illustrated by considering a single channel of a honeycomb reactor operating the catalytic partial oxidation of methane and a methane steam reforming packed bed reactor. The application of in situ adaptive tabulation resulted in a speed‐up of the chemical substep up to ∼500 times with an overall speed‐up of ∼5–15 times for the whole simulation. Such reduction of the computation effort is key to make affordable fundamental computational fluid dynamics simulations of chemical reactors at a level of complexity relevant to technological applications. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 63: 95–104, 2017

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aic.15441

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even with the steady-state simplification, evaluating surface kinetics still poses a severe computational bottleneck.

    “Even with that simplification, evaluating the surface kinetics still poses a severe computational bottleneck.1,7,[18][19][20]”
  • The solution of chemical kinetics often takes 70% to 90% of the computation time for both gas-phase and surface-reactive systems.

    “The computationally most demanding part of those simulations is the solution of the chemical kinetics that often takes 70 % to 90 % of the computation time for both gas-phase 5,6 and surface-reactive 1,7 systems.”
  • ISAT and PRISM are among the most used on-the-fly techniques.

    “Some of the most used on-the-fly techniques exploit prior solutions to estimate new queries like the in-situ adaptive tabulation (ISAT) 7,8,18,[20][21][22][23] and piecewise reusable implementation of solution mapping (PRISM) 24 technique.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bracconi, M., Maestri, M., & Cuoci, A.
Affiliations
Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Corresponding author
Maestri, Matteo
Venue
AIChE Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-19
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
95-104
ISSN
  • 0001-1541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5905
OpenAlex
W2484859166
Cited by
41
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • AIChE Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Combustion and flame dynamics
Keywords
in situ adaptive tabulation, heterogeneous reactors, operator splitting, honeycomb reactor, catalytic partial oxidation of methane, steam methane reforming, fixed-bed reactor, unsteady simulation, computational speed-up, reaction kinetics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review