Top Banner
Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by the Steam Reforming of Methane and Glycerol A. G. Dixon, B. MacDonald and A. Olm, Department of Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA Introduction: For gas-phase reactions with large mole changes in a packed tube reactor, density and velocity change. 1 We show how to include these in the reactor model, for methane steam reforming (MSR): CH 4 +H 2 O 3H 2 + CO CO + H 2 O CO 2 +H 2 CH 4 + 2H 2 O 4H 2 + CO 2 and steam reforming of glycerol (GSR): C 3 H 8 O 3 + 3H 2 O 7H 2 + 3CO 2 We solve an isothermal model with a 1-D domain for the reactor tube coupled to a 2-D domain for the single particle 2 in COMSOL. Results: MSR has higher P and lower reaction mole change. GSR has lower P and high reaction mole change. Effects of both on velocity are accounted for by the model equations. Conclusions: Effects of mole increases on the gas velocity and conversion for MSR and GSR were simulated using the mean molar mass. Results are given for isothermal 1-D calculations; future work will extend to 2-D non-isothermal cases. References: 1. Allain, F.; Dixon, A. G., Modeling of transport and reaction in a catalytic bed using a catalyst particle model, COMSOL Conference, Boston (2010) 2. Petera, J.; Nowicki, L.; Ledakowicz, S., New numerical algorithm for solving multidimensional heterogeneous model of the fixed bed reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 214, 237-246 (2013) 3. Cropley, J. B.; Burgess, L. M.; Loke, R. A., The optimal design of a reactor for the hydrogenation of butyraldehyde to butanol, ACS Symp. Ser., 237, 255-270 (1984) Figure 1. Tube and particle geometry Figure 2. Methane pellet conc. Figure 3. MSR: Conv. and v Figure 4. Glycerol pellet conc. Figure 5. GSR: M and v 0 1 x y Particle Tube ci*(x) Cpi(y,x) Coupling variables 0 2 4 6 8 10 x (m) 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 Conversion 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 Velocity (m/s) P control cont ro l 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 x (m) 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Velocity (m/s) 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.025 0.026 Mean molar mass (kg/mol) Excerpt from the Proceedings of the 2014 COMSOL Conference in Boston
1

Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by ... · Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by the ... heterogeneous model of the fixed bed reactor, ... optimal

Jul 19, 2018

Download

Documents

vuongdien
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by ... · Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by the ... heterogeneous model of the fixed bed reactor, ... optimal

Modeling of Packed Bed Reactors: Hydrogen Production by the Steam Reforming of Methane and Glycerol

A. G. Dixon, B. MacDonald and A. Olm, Department of Chemical Engineering,Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA

Introduction: For gas-phase reactions withlarge mole changes in a packed tube reactor,density and velocity change.1 We show howto include these in the reactor model, formethane steam reforming (MSR):

CH4 + H2O ↔ 3H2 + COCO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2

CH4 + 2H2O ↔ 4H2 + CO2and steam reforming of glycerol (GSR):

C3H8O3 + 3H2O → 7H2 + 3CO2We solve an isothermal model with a 1-Ddomain for the reactor tube coupled to a 2-Ddomain for the single particle2 in COMSOL.

Results: MSR has higher ∆P and lowerreaction mole change. GSR has lower ∆Pand high reaction mole change. Effects ofboth on velocity are accounted for by themodel equations.

Conclusions: Effects of mole increaseson the gas velocity and conversion forMSR and GSR were simulated using themean molar mass. Results are given forisothermal 1-D calculations; future workwill extend to 2-D non-isothermal cases.

References:1. Allain, F.; Dixon, A. G., Modeling of transport and

reaction in a catalytic bed using a catalyst particle model, COMSOL Conference, Boston (2010)

2. Petera, J.; Nowicki, L.; Ledakowicz, S., New numerical algorithm for solving multidimensional heterogeneous model of the fixed bed reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 214, 237-246 (2013)

3. Cropley, J. B.; Burgess, L. M.; Loke, R. A., The optimal design of a reactor for the hydrogenation of butyraldehyde to butanol, ACS Symp. Ser., 237, 255-270 (1984)Figure 1. Tube and particle geometry

Figure 2. Methane pellet conc. Figure 3. MSR: Conv. and v

Figure 4. Glycerol pellet conc. Figure 5. GSR: M and v

0 1x

y

Particle

Tube ci*(x)

Cpi(y,x)Couplingvariables

0 2 4 6 8 10x (m)

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

Co

nver

sio

n

2.6

2.65

2.7

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

Velocity (m

/s)P co

ntrol

c

ontro

l

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1x (m)

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Vel

ocity

(m

/s)

0.022

0.023

0.024

0.025

0.026

Mea

n mo

lar m

ass (kg/m

ol)

Excerpt from the Proceedings of the 2014 COMSOL Conference in Boston