Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GANDHINAGAR
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Atul Bhargav
Mechanical Engineering Department
IIT Gandhinagr
By
Dhwanil Shukla
Shubhangi Bansude
Senior Undergraduate | Mechanical Engineering
To
27 April 2013
Copyright by
[Dhwanil Shukla and Shubhangi Bansude]
[2014]
CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Aknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction to Autothermal Reforming .................................................................................................................. 5
2. Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
4. Experimental Setup design .............................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Setup design description........................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Setup Components ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Pre-mixer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Design Iterations ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Catalytic Reactor chamber .................................................................................................................................... 17
5.3 Steam + Ethanol Vapour Generating Furnace ............................................................................................. 18
5.4 Syringe Pumps ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
5.5 Mass Flow Controllers ............................................................................................................................................. 20
5.6 Thermocouples and Temperature Controller ............................................................................................. 21
5.7 Data Acquisition System (DAQ) &LabView .................................................................................................. 21
6. Effective Monolith Properties for Porous Media Modelling ........................................................................ 22
6.1 Porous Media Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 Permeability of Monolith Reactor ..................................................................................................................... 23
Grid Dependent Study ................................................................................................................................................ 23
6.3 Axial Conductivity of Monolith Reactor ......................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Radial Conductivity of Monolith Reactor ...................................................................................................... 28
6.5 Washcoat Thickness of Catalyst ......................................................................................................................... 30
7. CFD Modeling of Autothermal Reforming Of Ethanol..................................................................................... 33
7.1 Model Application for Autothermal Reforming of Methane ................................................................ 33
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 41
Future Work .............................................................................................................................................................................. 42
References .................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Annexure 1:- Flow Rate Calculations ...................................................................................................................... 43
Annexure 2:- Thermodynamic Calculations for steam generator ............................................................ 43
Annexure 3:- Detailed Surface Chemistry mechanism for methane ....................................................... 44
1|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
ABSTRACT
Reforming is a process obtaining hydrogen from hydrogen rich chemical compounds
like hydrocarbons. It finds its application mostly with fuel cell technology as a method of
onsite hydrogen production, eliminating the need of hydrogen storage, thereby
reducing the associated risks and also reducing the required space of the overall energy
generation setup. Autothermal reforming is a kind of reforming process which is neither
endothermic, nor exothermic, and thereby eliminating need of external heating or
cooling once the setup is operational. This technology is expected to further lower
operational cost and complexity of fuel cell energy generation systems. The choice of
ethanol as the organic fuel is mainly because it can be obtained from agricultural
feedstock and thus is a renewable source.
The overall project focuses on transient study of an ethanol autothermal reformer
through simulations and experiments. 3-dimensional model of the monolith-based
ATR is developed which would incorporates the heat transfer, the mass transfer and
the chemical kinetics that are involved with the reactants and the catalyst surface.
The entire monolith is modelled as a porous media, with the catalytically active
surface area modelled as a part of the medium itself. Monolith reactor properties are
obtained through series of simulations using commercial CFD software suite Star
CCM+. Developed model is extended to simulate methane ATR process to check the
accuracy of the model. The project also involves designing and building Ethanol
Autothermal Reformer Setup and performing transient state experiments on it for
validation of transient CFD model.
2|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Description
Density
Reynolds number
Dynamic viscosity
Axial velocity
Friction factor
Length
Velocity component in x
direction
Velocity component in y
direction
Velocity component in z
direction
Shear stress in x direction on
y face
Internal energy
Heat flux
Thermal conductivity
Hydraulic diameter
Area
Permeability
Mass
Volume flow rate
Unit
Kg/m3
--Pa-s
m/s
--m
m/s
m/s
m/s
N
J
W
J/m-K
m
m2
m2
kg
m3/s
3|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Working on this project was one of the richest learning experiences we earned during
our undergraduate studies. It changed our perspective of looking at engineering
problems. We are sincerely thankful to all people who helped in successful completion
of the project.
First of all we are grateful to Prof. Atul Bhargav for offering this project and supervising
us. His excellent mentorship made working on the project fun and good learning
opportunity. We would like to thank Prof. Murali Damodaran for availing facilities of
High Performance Computing without which it was impossible to perform heavy
computations involved in the project. Their time to time feedback helped us in doing
this better.
We would also like to thank Renika Baruah, Marm Dixit, Pratik Basarkar and Dhrupad
Parikh for their constant help and the hard work they have put in this project.
Finally, we are obliged to IIT Gandhinagar and Mechanical Engineering department for
giving us such opportunity of doing final year projects which help us learn things
outside formal courses.
4|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Endothermic Process
(
( )
It can be observed from the reaction equations that hydrogen yield per molecule of
hydrocarbon fuel is greater in the steam reforming process. Butthe process is
endothermic. Hence a steam reformer requires an external source of energy which is
often difficult to provide and hence not preferred for hydrogen production in mobile
applications. On the other hand, the catalytic partial oxidation reaction does not require
external heating once the reaction starts. But low hydrogen production is its short
coming. To overcome the issues in the two processes, a third type of reforming process,
Autothermal Reforming, is developed which is midway between the two. autothermal
reforming process is neither exothermic, nor endothermic and it yields more hydrogen
than the catalytic oxidation process. Thus, this technology is expected to further lower
operational cost and complexity of fuel cell energy generation systems. The schematic
below (Figure. 1) better explains the idea behind autothermal reforming.
5|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
3. METHODOLOGY
1. Referring work done by other researchers in reforming technology.
2. Designing experimental setup and identifying necessary components
3. Building CAD model of Reformer (Pre-mixer & Catalytic chamber)
4. Optimization of the reformer design using simulations
5. Identifying way to model heterogeneous reaction with the help of set of software
like Matlab, Cantera and Star CCM+ and simulating.
6. Parts procurement for reformer building
7. Building & Testing reformer
8. Analysing and comparing experimental results with simulations.
6|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Figure 2. Top left: Setup design with Liquid Mass Flow Controllers. Top Right: Setup design with
Syringe pumps. Bottom Left: 3D setup design. Bottom Right: Actual Setup.
Requirement of precise supply of reactants to the reactor is being met by the use
Mass Flow Controllers (MFC) and syringe pumps.
As it is very expensive to get high temperature MFCs for metering steam and
ethanol vapour, metering of water and ethanol in their liquid phase is currently
being done using syringe pump (syringe pumps will be replaced by Liquid Mass
Flow Controllers (LMFC) to facilitate uninterrupted experiments and control
through NI LabView).
Choice of electric furnace for steam generation is for ensuring precise control
over steam temperature.
Ethanol undergoes coking if heated directly into high temperature vapour. So,
high temperature ethanol vapour is being achieved by mixing liquid ethanol to
the stream of superheated steam and then the mixture is passed again through
the furnace for a second pass to raise the mixture temperature to the desired
temperature of 3000C. The section ______ describes steam generator design in
detail
(See Annexure 2:- Thermodynamic Calculations for steam generator)
The metered flows of the gases, O2 and N2 are mixed and then heated by an air
heater to temperatures around 4000C.
Temperatures of all the reactants streams are controlled monitored using k-type
thermocouples and are controlled by PID temperature controllers, which are
controlled through LabView.
The streams of Steam + Ethanol and Oxygen + Nitrogen are mixed in a pre-mixer
which is designed to obtain perfect mixing of the reactants before them entering
the reactant to ensure even reaction. The section ____ gives details on pre-mixer
designing process and the final pre-mixer design
The reactor catalyst, which is in the form of a monolith, has been divided into 4
segments to accommodate thermocouples which measure temperature of
residual gasses after the segments to know how much reaction is taking place in
each segment.
Pressure sensors are installed before and after the reactor to know pressure
drop about it
Next few sections here describe design and specifications of some important
components of the setup.
5. SETUP COMPONENTS
A detailed description on the components used in the experimental setup is presented
in this section
5.1 PRE-MIXER
As explained earlier, the main role of a pre-mixer is to combine the reactants into a
uniform mixture before their entry into the reactor. The constraints within which the
pre-mixer designing has been done are:1. Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet
2. Residence time
Uneven reactant flow velocities over the cross section of the monolith results
in uneven reaction rates and heat generation and hence clear idea about
reaction kinetics cant be obtained. Hence it is necessary to ensure that the
gasses coming out of the pre-mixer is spread over the catalyst area evenly
4. Dimensional Constraint
As the pre-mixer sits just before the reactor, its outlets dimensions must
match the reactors inlets dimensions.
5. Manufacturability
9|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
DESIGN ITERATIONS
The pre-mixer designing was done by the help of simulation results obtained using
STAR-CCM+ simulation software. Various design iterations based on simulation results
are described here
DESIGN 1:
BASIC DESIGN TO START WITH
CAD Model
67.8%
Comments:
1. Very uneven mixing of reactants
2. Un-symmetric gas flow because of unequal momentum of both flows
3. Very High Residence time.
10 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
DESIGN 2:
SOLVING ISSUE OF UNEVEN MIXING AND UN-SYMMETRIC GAS FLOW
2 ports for each stream located diametrically opposite to cancel out radial
momentum of streams to result into symmetric and well mixed flow
CAD Model
99.2%
Comments:
1. Even mixing of reactants
2. Symmetric gas flow
3. Very High Residence time.
DESIGN 3:
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE RESIDENCE TIME AND AXIAL MIXING LENGTH
11 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
CAD Model
99.9%
Comments:
1. Near perfect mixing of reactants
2. Symmetric gas flow at outlet
3. Residence time lower than previous design. But still too high for the purpose.
4. Manufacturing curved cavity like this is difficult
DESIGN 4:
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE RESIDENCE TIME AND IMPROVE MANUFACTURABILITY
CAD Model
98.9%
Comments:
1. Residence time significantly decreased at the cost of uniformity (but still within
acceptable limits)
2. Velocity much higher at centre of the outlet compared to periphery. Hence, even
velocity distribution is not obtained.
DESIGN 5:
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE RESIDENCE TIME AND IMPROVE MANUFACTURABILITY
An obstacle in the flow path near outlet introduced to spread the flow over the
outlet.
13 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
CAD Model
98.6%
Comments:
1. Velocity distribution at outlet is more even and is variation is within acceptable
limits.
2. Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet and residence time is also acceptable.
The designs 1 5 described above had been made considering reactor to be cylindrical
in shape with inner diameter of 1 cm. The flow parameters and the boundary conditions
used for the simulation tests were mentioned in Table 1.
14 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Table1.Flow parameters and the boundary conditions used for the pre-mixer simulation tests
The optimal grid size for the simulations was determined by grid dependence study
(Chart 1).
0.098
0.097
0.096
0.095
0.094
0.093
0.092
0.091
0.09
0.089
0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
1/Gridsize
0.00008
0.0001
0.00012
The meshing used for the simulations had the following specifications:
Polyhedral mesh for flow domain
Prism layers at the boundaries
Grid size 60000
The figures below shows the mesh diagram with the above specifications of the premixer design 5
15 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0
0.5
Premixer 2
1
Time (s)
Premixer 3
1.5
Premixer 4
2
Premixer 5
Chart 2.Surface uniformity plot showing Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet of different pre-mixer
designs with time
Use of 1/8th inch tube as mixing chamber for the two streams
Use of perforated baffle plate at the end of tube to ensure even velocity
distribution over the whole cross section of monolith reactor
CAD Model
16 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
99.7%
Comments:
1. The design ensures good mixing of the reactants
2. Velocity distribution at outlet is even and is variation is within acceptable limits.
3. Considerable local turbulence is observed at the baffle plate which may be
responsible for good mixing. Turbulence may increase residence time of some
gas mass
4. The pre-mixer apparently does not need any manufacturing as the tubes and
connectors are ready available in market and the making of perforated baffle
plate is very simple and cheap.
The only difference in the simulated model and the actual pre-mixer is that the Y
connector is replaced by a T connector. This difference is not expected to affect the
results significantly so simulation for T connector pre-mixer was not considered
necessary.
5.2 CATALYTIC REACTOR CHAMBER
The catalytic reactor chamber houses the monolith catalyst segments. The chamber also
contains the perforated baffle plate which is a part of premixer. The chamber has holes
where the connectors for placing thermocouples are welded. These thermocouples are
installed to monitor temperatures at different point in the cross section of the reactor
after each monolith segment. The sealing to prevent leakage is done using copper
gaskets. Normal rubber or plastic gaskets cannot be used because the reactor chamber
walls are expected to reach temperatures as high as 6000 C. Heat loss to the
surroundings from the chamber results in erroneous estimate of reaction kinetics.
Hence, whole of this chamber is insulated by ceramic wool to prevent heat loss.
17 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
The efflux gasses of the reactor are passed through a condenser to remove moisture,
and then passed to GC to analyse its constituent gasses.
18 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
coils of 1/8th inch tube each. The outer helical tube is for heating water up to 550 0 C and
the inner helical coil is for heating the steam + ethanol mixture to 3000 C.
Figure 11.3D CAD design image showing vapour generating furnace design
19 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
20 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
21 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
axial and radial direction is obtained through CFD simulations. Following sections
discuss this in detail. Note that from now onwards monolith reactor refers to the
actual configuration of an ATR reactor and porous media corresponds to the porous
media equivalence of monolith reactor.
6.2 PERMEABILITY OF MONOLITH REACTOR
Permeability of monolith reactor is obtained using Darcy's law which relates the
instantaneous discharge rate ( ) through a porous media, flow cross section ( ),
the viscosity of the fluid( ), permeability of the fluid ( ), and pressure drop ( )
over a given distance ( ).
CFD model of sixteen channel geometry of reactor is built in order to find out
permeability of the representative porous media. Model uses geometry with sixteen
channels of monolith reactor. Geometry with outer dimensions is shown in figure
17(a). Wall thickness of the channel is around 0.5 mm. Mesh used for computation is
in figure 17(b). It is evident that geometry indicates the fluid domain to be modeled
and not the solid walls of monolith. Mesh is polyhedral with prism layers at the
boundaries. Base size used is 0.5 mm which is obtained by grid dependent study.
Where,
is given by relation:
23 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Value
1 kg/m 3
20 cm
1 m/s
1.85510-5 Pa-s
5 mm
Table 3.Meshing in the geometry
Pressure drop, Pa
Pressure drop across the length was 28 Pa. Number of cells in mesh is varied from
coarser to finer till pressure drop obtained from simulation reaches the theoretical
value. Chart3 shows the graph plotting pressure drop with increasing grid size.
Optimum size obtained is 91,600 cells in a computational domain.
28.1
28
27.9
27.8
27.7
27.6
27.5
27.4
27.3
27.2
27.1
0
50000
Pressure Drop, Pa
Thereotical value
Permeability of the property of a porous medium and does not depend on the fluid
flowing through it. Air is used as fluid medium for sake of simplicity. Flow is
modeled as 3-D, laminar flow, steady flow. Governing equations for the flow are:
Continuity Equation:
Momentum Equation:
24 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Energy Equation:
(
Monolith material properties are taken from the catalogue provided by the
manufacturer. These properties are tabulated in table 4. Boundary conditions are in
table 5.
Property
Monolith material
Hydraulic diameter,
Length of a reactor,
Dynamic viscosity of fluid (In this case air),
Density of fluid,
Cross section area of monolith,
Density of Cordierite
Specific heat of Cordierite
Thermal conductivity of Cordierite
Value
Cordierite
4 mm
60 mm
1.855 10-5Pa-s
1.225 kg/m3
0.000016 m2
2600kg/m3
1465 J/kg-K
3 W/m-K
Air is flown inside the reactor with different velocities and pressure drop across the
length of a reactor is recorded with series of simulations. Pressure drop per unit
length of reactor and product of discharge rate, viscosity and reciprocal of cross
section area is plotted as shown in Chart 4. Slope of this plot gives the permeability.
Permeability obtained by the above method is 3.888 10-8 m2.
Boundary
Inlet
Outlet
Walls
Boundary condition
Uniform velocity,
V= 1m/s to 10 m/s
Atmospheric conditions,
P = 1.01325 105 Pa, T=
Adiabatic, No slip
V= 0 m/s ,
Table 5.Boundary Conditions for permeability simulations
25 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
0.00025
(Q)/A, (Pa.m/s)
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
26 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
In this case flow is modeled as 3-D, laminar, steady with heat transfer via
conduction. Governing equations are same as in previous case except the energy
equation. In this case energy equation also accounts for heat conduction term.
Energy equation:
(
Point 1
[-0.002,0,0.000] m
[-0.002,0,0.002] m
[-0.002,0,0.003] m
[-0.001,0,0.003] m
Point 2
[-0.002,-0.06,0.000] m
[-0.002,-0.06,0.002] m
[-0.002,-0.06,0.003] m
[-0.001,-0.06,0.003] m
27 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
800
700
600
Temperatureline-probe (C)
Temperature(C)
500
Temperatureline-probe 2 (C)
400
300
Temperatureline-probe 3 (C)
200
Temperatureline-probe 4 (C)
100
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Position (m)
Chart 5.Axial temperature profiles along the four different axial line probes
28 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Figure 20.Geometry and Mesh of channelled monolith (left) and porous material (right) used for
simulations
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
Heat
Flux, W
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0
Conductivity, (W/mK)
Chart6.Heat flux vs Conductivity plot for finding radial heat conductivity
29 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
We are also interested in radial temperature profile in both the cases. Figure 21
shows the radial temperature profile and it looks similar for both the cases. This
shows that porous media approach is quite accurate.
a)Reactor
b) Porous media
Figure 21.Radial temperature profile in monolith and porous material.
30 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Figure 23.Sectional SEM image of coated monolith (finding average wall thickness)
31 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Similar procedure is followed to obtain length and width of channel (Figure 24). In this
case channel is square in shape. Thus length and breadth will have same values. From
the obtained thickness values other parameters of interest were calculated. Expressions
used for calculation and values obtained for each parameter is tabulated in table 7. It is
important to note that while determining properties of monolith we used geometry
with 3 x 3 channel cross section, but for developing CFD model we are taking catalyst
with 16 channels. As material properties like conductivity and permeability do not
change with shape and size, we can use obtained properties for our simulation.
Parameters defined as outer body of reactor for reactor with 4 x 4 channel cross section.
Parameter
Wall thickness without coating, a
Wall thickness with coating,a'
Washcoat thickness, t
Inner side length of channel, b
Inner perimeter of channel , P
Area of channel,
Hydraulic diameter of channel,
Axial length of reactor,
Side length of 16-channel
Relation used
----t = a'-a
--P= 4 b
=b
---
Value
0.156 0.0095 mm
0.265 0.0229 mm
0.109 0.0135 mm
1.120 0.0199 mm
4.49 mm
1.26 mm2
1.120 mm
130 mm
5.55 mm
32 | P a g e
reactor,
Lateral of monolith,
Hydraulic diameter of reactor,
Active area factor,
Reactive surface area of channel,
(
Assumed
0.0222 m2
5.55 mm
0.8
0.0178 m2
33 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Physics:
Physics involved in this case is complex because of chemical reactions and heat transfer
involved in the process. Occurrence of chemical reactions introduces species source
terms in the governing equations. Flow is modelled as unsteady, laminar, segregated
flow with surface reactions and conductive heat transfer taking place inside domain. As
explained earlier computational domain is modelled as porous media.
The Segregated Flow model solves the flow equations (one for each component of
velocity, and one for pressure) in a segregated, or uncoupled, manner. The linkage
between the momentum and continuity equations is achieved with a predictorcorrector approach.This uses SIMPLE algorithm for calculating flow solution. This
model is chosen as it gives accurate and robust solutions for compressible flows with
low velocities.
Species source terms coming into picture because of reactions taking place at the
surface sites are defined by importing chemical reactions mechanisms in CHEMKIN
format using Digital Analysis of Chemical Reactions (DARS). Detail chemistry was used
for the purpose. Flow is governed by following equations:
Continuity Equation:
(
)
(
Momentum Equation:
(
(2)
Energy Equation:
(
(3)
Parameter
Area to volume ratio
Permeability
Porosity (assumed)
Axial thermal conductivity
Radial thermal conductivity
Solid specific heat
Density
Value
3570.0/m
3.888 10-8 m2
0.5
0.8 W/m-K
0.5 W/m-K
1465 J/kg-K
2600 kg/m3
Value
0.185
0.556
0.259
800o C
1 atm
0 m/s
Table 9.Initial Conditions
Inlet Condition/Parameter
Mole fraction
CH4
H2O
O2
Temperature
Pressure
Velocity
Value
0.185
0.556
0.259
800o C
1 atm
1.87 m/s
Table 10.Boundary Conditions
Outlet is put at atmospheric condition i.e. P=1 atm and T=27 o C. All the walls are given
adiabatic and no slip boundary condition i.e. V= 0 m/s,
Note that there is not any specific reason about chosen values of S/C and O/C ratio. This
case is simulated just to ensure that the built CFD model is capable of simulating flows
involving surface chemical reactions.
Solver Settings:
Flow is solved as unsteady flow. Implicit unsteady method is used to avoid situations
where solution can go unstable because of increase in CFL number. As flow involves the
chemical reaction, it is very important to decide time-step so as to capture production
and destruction of species. Chemical reaction generally has timescale of 10 -6 s. Thus the
35 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
time-step equal to 10-6 s at the early stages of computation and then equal to 10-5 s were
chosen for the simulations.
Results and Discussion:
This section presents the results obtained from simulation. As a part of post
processing,the following parts were created to analyse the results (Table 11,Table 12
and Table 13).
Probes in axial direction:
Probe
Probe A1
Probe A2
Probe A3
Probe A4
Probe A5
Point 1
[0,0,0] m
[0,0.0125,0] m
[0,-0.0125,0] m
[0.0125,0,0] m
[-0.0125,0,0] m
Point 2
[0,0,0.13] m
[0,0.0125,0.13] m
[0,-0.0125,0.13] m
[00.0125,0,0.13] m
[-00.0125,0,0.13] m
Point 1
[-0.002,0,0.065] m
[-0.002,0,0.0325] m
[-0.002,0,0.01] m
[-0.002,0,0.0975] m
[-0.002,0,0.12] m
Point 2
[0.002,0,0.065] m
[0.002,0,0.0325] m
[0.002,0,0.01] m
[0.002,0,0.0975] m
[0.002,0,0.012] m
Plane sections:
Plane
Plane A1
Plane A2
Plane R1
Plane R2
Plane R3
Normal
[0,0,1]
[0,0,1]
[0,1,0]
[0,1,0]
[0,1,0]
Point
[0,0,0] m
[0,0.0125,0] m
[0,0,0.065] m
[0,0,0.015] m
[0,0,0.115] m
Mole fractions for different species are monitored with time. Chart 7shows the plot for
mole fractions with respect to time. Methane and Oxygen are continuously decreasing
with time. But mole fraction of steam is increasing at the initial stage and later
decreasing. This is because partial oxidation reaction is more favourable at the start as
it is exothermic. This partial oxidation increases temperature and steam reforming
reaction, which is endothermic in nature, starts occurring where steam gets used. So
mole fraction of steam decreases after sometime. As per the logic temperature should
follow the same trend as mole fraction of steam with respect to time. This is depicted in
chart 8.
36 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Mole fraction
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Time, s
Temperature , K
1318
1317.5
1317
1316.5
1316
1315.5
1315
1314.5
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Time, s
Chart 8.Plot for mole fractions with respect to time
Chart 9 shows the mole fractions and selectivity of products. Trend of mole fraction of
CO is similar to that of steam. Forward water gas shift reaction is favourable at higher
temperature. Production of CO is higher at lower temperatures because of favourability
of reverse water gas shift reaction. That's the reason CO is increasing at early stages and
later decreasing.
37 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Mole fraction
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.00
0.01
0.02
CH4
0.03
Time,s
CO
0.04
CO2
0.05
0.06
H2
Chart 9.Plot for mole fractions of products only with respect to time
Steady state mole fraction profiles in axial direction are shown in chart 10. All of the
reactions are happening at the inlet side of reactor. This study is very helpful to
optimize length of a reactor. Axial profiles of different quantities are presented in
pictorial format in figure 26. All the profiles are for plane A1. Other planes parallel to
A1 show similar profiles but different values. This is because this profile also varies in
radial direction.
0.9
0.8
Mole fraction
0.7
0.6
0.5
Mole Fraction of CO
0.4
0.3
Mole Fraction of H2
0.2
0.1
Mole Fraction of O2
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
38 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
39 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
1350
Temperature, K
1300
Temperature--Probe A2
1250
Temperature--Probe A3
1200
Temperature-Probe A1
Temperature-Probe A4
1150
Temperature-Probe A5
1100
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Distance, m
Chart11.Temperature profile in axial direction
Temperature in the reactor is not uniform in the radial direction because reactor also
has some conductivity in radial direction. Chart 12 shows steady state temperature
profiles at different line probes in radial direction. Difference in maxima and minima is
difference because of axial temperature profile.
1370
1360
Temperature, K
1350
1340
Temperature-Probe R4
1330
Temperature-Probe R5
1320
Temperature-Probe R1
1310
Temperature-Probe R2
1300
Temperature-Probe R3
1290
-0.003
-0.002
1280
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
DIstance, m
Chart 12.Temperature profile in radial direction
Mole fraction of hydrogen and CO are plotted at various radial positions to see the effect
of radial temperature profile. Figure 27 shows hydrogen mole fraction profile becomes
constant with respect to distance in axial direction. Profiles for plane R1 and plane R3
show this constant profile. It is observed that a hydrogen mole fraction maximum is at
the centre because hydrogen production is favourable at low temperatures.
40 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
Plane R2
Plane R1
Plane R3
CONCLUSION
41 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
FUTURE WORK
Experiments
Conducting test runs on the setup and trouble shooting
Conducting actual experiments
Validation of computational model by experimental results
REFERENCES
1] V. Palma et al., Monolith and foam catalysts performances in ATR of liquid and gaseous fuels,
Chem. Eng. J. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.07.018Annexure
2] I. Uriza, G. Arzamendia, E. Lpez, J. Llorca, L.M. Ganda, Computational fluid dynamics
simulation of ethanol steam reforming in catalytic wall microchannels, Chemical Engineering
Journal167 (2011) 603609
3] Liming Shi, David J. Bayless, Michael E. Prudich, A CFD model of autothermal reforming,
international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 76667675
4] Liming Shi, David J. Bayless, Michael Prudich, A model of steam reforming of iso-octane: The
effect of thermal boundary conditions on hydrogen production and reactor temperature,
international journal of hydrogen energy 33 (2008) 45774585
5] User guide Star CCM+8.02, CD-adapco
6] J. Thormann, L. Maier, P. Pfeifer, U. Kunz, K. Schubert, O. Deutschmann, Steam
42 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer
=
=
46 g/mole
0.789 g/cc
=
=
18 g/mole
1.0 g/cc
=
=
2
0.5 g/min
0.634 cc/min
0.021739 moles/min
0.043478 moles/min
0.7826 g/min
0.7826 cc/min
24.54 W
=
36.221 W
43 | P a g e
44 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer