Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 23, pp 14275–14286 | Cite as

Analysis of particle breakage during the preparation steps of Co/Al2O3 catalysts

  • Nouria FatahEmail author
  • Fabien Dhainaut


Fischer–Tropsch reaction is applied to produce ultra-clean fuels based on the synthesis gases. Supported cobalt catalysts are used for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis due to their high stability and good catalytic activity. These catalysts are generally prepared by wet chemical methods which involve impregnation, drying and calcination. A new approach to the analysis of degradation of catalysts under thermal stress during the various steps of catalyst preparation has been applied to the support (γ-Al2O3) and to the catalysts (10 wt% Co/Al2O3). Low particle damages occur when the catalyst is prepared by impregnation. Thus, a rate of about 1 wt% of fine particles with sizes less than 63 µm has been quantified. However, the effect of temperature during drying at 100 °C and calcination at 400 °C becomes significant: a degradation rate of 2% and 5% is noted for temperatures of 100 °C and 400 °C, respectively. These results show particle degradation through cleavage and fragmentation. These mechanisms result in the initial heterogeneous structure (fractures and cracks) of the support which reduces the mechanical resistance of the catalyst and initiates the rupture of the particles under an increase in temperature. To describe the particle breakage, a numerical approach was implemented under thermal stresses on modeled Co/Al2O3 ring particles. Calculations were performed using COMSOL Multiphysics® (Structural Mechanics Module) following a 2D geometry. The effect of temperature, crack height (radial and axial components) and porosity on the particle breakage were studied. The results obtained highlighted the solid breakage at high temperature (calcination phase), high-size cracks and low porosity.



Chevreul Institute (FR 2638), Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Région Nord–Pas de Calais and FEDER are acknowledged for supporting and funding partially this work.


  1. 1.
    Khodakov AY, Chu W, Fongarland P (2007) Advances in the development of novel cobalt Fischer–Tropsch catalysts for synthesis of long-chain hydrocarbons and clean fuels. Chem Rev 107:1692–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang X, Zhang C (2014) The impacts of global oil price shocks on China’s fundamental industries. Energy Policy 68:394–402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Werther J, Reppenhagen J (1999) Catalyst attrition in fluidized-bed systems. AIChE J 45:2001–2010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pham HN, Datye AK (2000) The synthesis of attrition resistant slurry phase iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts. Catal Today 58:233–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bukur DB, Carreto-Vazquez VH, Ma W (2010) Catalytic performance and attrition strength of spray-dried iron catalysts for slurry phase Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Appl Catal Gen 388:240–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bukur DB (2005) Attrition studies with catalysts and supports for slurry phase Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 106:275–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wei D, Zhang Y, Goodwin JG Jr (2000) The effect of pretreatment on the attrition resistance of spray-dried alumina. Appl Catal Gen 201:129–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rotan M, Rytter E, Einarsrud M-A, Grande T (2013) Solid state mechanism leading to enhanced attrition resistance of alumina based catalyst supports for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. J Eur Ceram Soc 33:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhao R, Sudsakorn K, Goodwin JG Jr, Jothimurugesan K, Gangwal SK, Spivey JJ (2002) Attrition resistance of spray-dried iron F–T catalysts: effect of activation conditions. Catal Today 71:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wei D, Goodwin JG Jr, Oukaci R, Singleton AH (2001) Attrition resistance of cobalt F–T catalysts for slurry bubble column reactor use. Appl Catal Gen 210:137–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Der Laan GP, Beenackers AACM (1999) Kinetics and selectivity of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: a literature review. Catal Rev 41:255–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mochida I, Okuma O, Yoon S-H (2014) Chemicals from direct coal liquefaction. Chem Rev 114:1637–1672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schulz H (1999) Short history and present trends of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Appl Catal Gen 186:3–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jahangiri H, Bennett J, Mahjoubi P, Wilson K, Gu S (2014) A review of advanced catalyst development for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis of hydrocarbons from biomass derived syn-gas. Catal Sci Technol 4:2210–2229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumond F, Marceau E, Che M (2007) A study of cobalt speciation in Co/Al2O3 catalysts prepared from solutions of cobalt − ethylenediamine complexes. J Phys Chem C 111:4780–4789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saeidi F, Tavares LM, Yahyaei M, Powell M (2016) A phenomenological model of single particle breakage as a multi-stage process. Miner Eng 98:90–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu Y, Liu H, Mao H (2017) DEM investigation of the effect of intermediate principle stress on particle breakage of granular materials. Comput Geotech 84:58–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiménez-Herrera N, Barrios GKP, Tavares LM (2018) Comparison of breakage models in DEM in simulating impact on particle beds. Adv Powder Technol 29:692–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raisianzadeh J, Mirghasemi AA, Mohammadi S (2018) 2D simulation of breakage of angular particles using combined DEM and XFEM. Powder Technol 336:282–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khodakov AY (2009) Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: relations between structure of cobalt catalysts and their catalytic performance. Catal Today 144:251–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fatah N (2005) Étude des poudres cohésives fluidisation et simulation numérique. Habilitation à diriger des recherches. Edn. Université Lille1 - Sciences et TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlosser F (1998) Eléments de mécanique des sols. Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fatah N (2009) Study and comparison of micronic and nanometric powders: analysis of physical, flow and interparticle properties of powders. Powder Technol 190:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ziyani L, Fatah N (2014) Use of experimental designs to optimize fluidized bed granulation of maltodextrin. Adv Powder Technol 25:1069–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brabant C, Khodakov A, Griboval-Constant A (2017) Promotion of lanthanum-supported cobalt-based catalysts for the Fischer–Tropsch reaction. C R Chim 20:40–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griboval-Constant A, Butel A, Ordomsky VV, Chernavskii PA, Khodakov AY (2014) Cobalt and iron species in alumina supported bimetallic catalysts for Fischer–Tropsch reaction. Appl Catal Gen 481:116–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ashby MF, Jones DRH (2008) Matériaux. 1. Propriétés applications et conception, 3rd edn. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deng Z-Y, Fukasawa T, Ando M, Zhang G-J, Ohji T (2001) Microstructure and mechanical properties of porous alumina ceramics fabricated by the decomposition of aluminum hydroxide. J Am Ceram Soc 84:2638–2644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    David RL (2005) Handbook of chemistry and physics, 86th edn. CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 6–93Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peng Z, Fuguo L (2009) Microstructure-based simulation of plastic deformation behavior of SiC particle reinforced Al matrix composites. Chin J Aeronaut 22:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 8181 – UCCS – Unité de Catalyse et Chimie du Solide, CNRS, Centrale Lille, ENSCLUniversity of Lille, University of ArtoisLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations