Edited by Foxit Reader

Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
For Evaluation Only.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jiec

Optimization of ammonia production from urea in continuous process using

ASPEN Plus and computational fluid dynamics study of the reactor used for
hydrolysis process
J.N. Sahu a,b,*, V.S. Rama Krishna Chava a, Shadab Hussain a, A.V. Patwardhan c, B.C. Meikap a,d
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, P.O. Kharagpur Technology, West Bengal 721302, India
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Pin 50603, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), Mumbai 400019, India
d
School of Chemical Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Faculty of Engineering, Howard College Campus, King George V. Avenue, Durban 4041, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The present study addresses the methods and means to safely produce relatively small amounts (i.e., up
Received 1 November 2009 to 50 kg/h) of ammonia. The optimization and simulation study conducted for continuous process and
Accepted 12 January 2010 effect of operation conditions like reaction temperature, initial feed concentration and pressure on
ammonia production carried out using ASPEN Plus. Also, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model
Keywords: was proposed to simulate the hydrolysis of urea for synthesis of ammonia. A series of parametric studies
Hydrolysis of urea to investigate flow rates, thermal boundary conditions and reactor geometry was performed for
Ammonia
hydrolysis of urea and the optimized operating conditions and reactor geometry were obtained. Detailed
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Simulation
three-dimensional flow, heat and chemistry simulations of ammonia, carbon dioxide and ammonium
Modelling carbamate. The study demonstrates that simulation is a useful tool for diagnosing hydrolysis reactor
Optimization mixing pathologies and for identifying practical countermeasures that could improve process
performance.
ß 2010 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction safety and environmental regulatory requirements for risk

Ammonia is an extremely important chemical that has
innumerable uses in a wide range of areas, including process
industry, and utility uses [1–3]. Many industrial plants require the
supply of large quantities of ammonia, which frequently must be
transported through and stored in populated areas. Important
users among these are industrial furnaces, incinerators and electric
power generation industries [4,5]. All of these are faced with a
lowering of the amount of nitrogen oxides being discharged to the
atmosphere in the combustion gases being emitted from their
operations, as required by environmental regulations [6–12].
Another important use is for the so-called ‘‘conditioning’’ of flue
gas by which an improved collection and removal of particles
matter (fly ash) is obtained [13–22]. But unfortunately, ammonia
presents significant danger to human health as a hazardous
chemical. Its transportation, storage and handling triggers serious
* Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Pin 50603, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 3 7967 5295; fax: +60 3 7967 5319.
E-mail addresses: jay_sahu@yahoo.co.in, Jnsahu@um.edu.my (J.N. Sahu).
management plans, accident prevention programs, emergency
response plans and release analysis [23–25]. The present study is
concerned with the methods and means to safely produce
relatively small amounts (i.e., up to 50 kg/h) of ammonia.
There are several chemical processes that are used to
manufacture ammonia. The three most prevalent methods include
the Haber–Bosch process, indirect electrochemical dissociation,
and urea decomposition [26]. The Haber–Bosch process reacts
gaseous hydrogen and nitrogen over a metal catalyst at high
temperatures (e.g., at 748 K) and pressures (e.g., at 20 MPa). This
process is a proven large-scale industrial process; however, it uses
harsh conditions and has not been proven technically or
economically effective below the ton/hour range. The electro-
chemical dissociation process has been proposed by some in the
semiconductor industry as an alternative to the Haber–Bosch
process for the generation of ammonia. This process also react
hydrogen and nitrogen. However, it is an indirect synthesis via a
molten alkali-metal halide electrolyte with nitrogen introduced at
the cathode and hydrogen introduced at the anode. The electro-
chemical dissociation process also operates at elevated tempera-
tures (e.g., at 673 K) but at ambient pressure. While utilizing less
harsh operating conditions or parameters than the Haber–Bosch

1226-086X/$ – see front matter ß 2010 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2010.03.016
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009
578 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
For Evaluation Only.

Fig. 1. Schematic of urea hydrolysis system used in thermal power plants.

process, the electrochemical dissociation process has not been Fig. 2. Effect of temperature on production of ammonia in CSTR.
proven above pilot scale production rates and has a high risk of
alkali metal contamination. Another concern with adopting these
two processes for generating ammonia it that the Haber–Bosch and and employs two reaction steps as follows [45–48]:
electrochemical distribution processes require large amounts of
Heat
hydrogen, which adds significantly to the risk of operating an NH2 CONH2 þ H2 O ! NH2 COONH4 ;
urea water ammonium carbamate (1)
ammonia generation facility. An alternative approach to ammonia
supply suggested in the late eighties includes using urea feedstock DH1 ¼ 15:5 kJ=mol
to generate ammonia on site [27]. The method of urea to ammonia
conversion by hydrolysis process, urea is an ideal candidate for the The ammonium carbamate decomposed then to yield carbon
manufacture of ammonia [3,23–27]. Urea is an environmentally dioxide and ammonia gases:
safe material used primarily as fertilizer. Urea is a non-toxic
þHeat
chemical compound and presents essentially no danger to the NH2 COONH4 ! 2NH3 þ CO2 ;
environment, animals, plants life and human beings. It is solid ammonium carbamate ammonia carbon dioxide (2)
under ambient temperatures and pressures. Consequently, urea DH2 ¼ þ177 kJ=mol
can be safely and inexpensively shipped in bulk and stored for long
periods of time until it is converted into ammonia. It will not leak, The first reaction in which urea hydrolyzes to form ammonium
explode, be a source of toxic fumes, require pressurization, carbamate is mildly exothermic, while the second, in which
increase insurance premiums, require extensive safety programs, ammonia and carbon dioxide are produced, is strongly endother-
or be a concern to the plant, community and individuals who may mic, with the result that the reaction to release ammonia and
be aware of the transportation and/or storage dangers of ammonia. carbon dioxide requires heat and quickly stops when the supply of
It has been determined that using urea thermal hydrolysis is the heat is withdrawn. Excess water promotes the hydrolysis reaction,
preferred process for converting urea/water solution into a gaseous the overall reaction for which is as follows:
mixture containing ammonia, carbon dioxide and water vapor
[28]. A typical urea hydrolysis process used in industry is shown in xH2 O þ NH2 CONH2 ! 2NH3 þ CO2 þ ðx  1ÞH2 O;
(3)
Fig. 1. DHoverall ¼ þ161:5 kJ=mol
The published information in literature about hydrolysis of urea
for production of ammonia is very little detailed and patented
[4,5,27–37]. However, in our early laboratory study [38–44] gives
clear overview regarding the equilibrium and kinetic study of urea
hydrolysis for production of ammonia in batch and semi-batch
reactors. Batch and semi-batch reactors were easy to use in the
laboratory study, but less convenient for industrial applications.
Therefore, we decided to study more thoroughly the continuous
process for optimization of operating variable using ASPEN Plus by
using all data achieved in early study. Also a modelled, using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach to determine the
local and instantaneous values of liquid velocity, temperature and
reactant concentrations inside the reactor.

2. Reaction pathway

The hydrolysis of urea to ammonia is endothermic and proceeds

rapidly above a temperature of approximately 373 K. The basic
chemistry employed in the process is the reverse of that employed
in industrial production of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide Fig. 3. Effect of pressure on production of ammonia in CSTR.

J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
Fig. 4. 3D combine effect of pressure and temperature on production of ammonia in
CSTR.
The completion of the reaction is favored by high temperature,
stirring speed and high reaction pressure. The overall reaction is
endothermic and the first reaction, i.e. urea to ammonium
carbamate reaction is a slow reaction and the second reaction is
very fast and goes towards completion [47,48].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. ASPEN Plus simulations
ASPEN Plus is widely accepted in the chemical industry as a
design tool because of its ability to simulate a variety of steady-
state processes ranging from single unit operation to complex
processes involving many units [49–53]. Consequently, ASPEN Plus
Fig. 5. Effect of temperature on production of ammonia in PFR.
Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009
579
For Evaluation Only.
Fig. 6. Effect of pressure on production of ammonia in PFR.
was chosen as a framework for the development of a hydrolysis
process simulation. Since there is no hydrolysis of urea model
provided by ASPEN PLUS, we must develop our own using the tools
offered by ASPEN Plus 15, 16. In addition to its conventional reactor
models, ASPEN Plus has the flexibility to allow the insertion of
Fortran blocks and user kinetic subroutines into the simulation. In
this work, it was optimized and simulation for a continuous
process to produce 50 kg/h ammonia from urea. It determined the
type of reactor to be used as continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR)
or plug flow reactor (PFR) and also it found out the process
variables optimization. The ammonia output from a reactor
depends on four factors. They are (i) feed input, (ii) temperature,
(iii) pressure, and (iv) reactor volume. It has two types of reactors
that are generally used viz. CSTR and PFR. So for choosing the type
of reactor it need to check which reactor gives more ammonia
output under same conditions of feed flow, temperature, pressure
and reactor volume. The simulations for the reactors CSTR and PFR
Fig. 7. 3D combine effect of pressure and temperature on production of ammonia in
PFR.
580 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586

Table 1
Optimization of production of ammonia from urea.

Initial feed Pressure (atm) Temperature (K) Feed rate (kg/h) Urea in feed Water in feed Ammonia CO2 (kg/h)
concentration (wt%) (kg/h) (kg/h) (kg/h)

30 4 403 530 159 371 50.5 65.3

30 4 413 520 156 364 50.5 65.3
30 4 423 520 156 364 50.0 64.6
30 5 393 500 150 350 50.4 65.07
30 5 403 440 132 308 50.5 65.3
30 5 413 420 126 294 50.8 65.7
30 5 423 420 126 294 50.4 65.1
30 5 433 460 138 322 50.0 64.6
30 6 393 450 135 315 50.4 65.1
30 6 403 400 120 280 50.7 65.4
30 6 413 370 111 259 50.1 64.8
30 6 423 370 111 259 50.5 65.2
30 6 433 400 120 280 51.0 65.9
30 7 393 420 126 294 50.5 65.3
30 7 403 370 111 259 50.0 64.5
30 7 413 350 105 245 50.3 65.0
30 7 423 340 102 238 50.0 64.6
30 7 433 360 108 252 50.9 65.8
30 8 393 400 120 280 50.7 65.4
30 8 403 360 108 252 50.5 65.2
30 8 413 340 102 238 50.6 65.3
30 8 423 330 99 231 50.5 65.3
30 8 433 330 99 231 50.0 64.7
40 3 413 470 188 282 50.6 65.4
40 3 423 460 184 276 50.6 65.4
40 4 393 440 176 264 50.2 64.8
40 4 403 380 152 228 50.1 64.8
40 4 413 350 140 210 50.2 64.9
40 4 423 340 136 204 49.9 64.4
40 4 433 380 152 228 50.1 64.7
40 5 393 380 152 228 50.8 65.6
40 5 403 330 132 198 50.8 65.68
40 5 413 300 120 180 49.98 64.58
40 5 423 300 120 180 50.7 65.5
40 5 433 320 128 192 50.6 65.4
40 6 393 340 136 204 50.44 65.2
40 6 403 300 120 180 50.6 65.4
40 6 413 280 112 168 50.7 65.5
40 6 423 270 108 162 49.9 64.5
40 6 433 280 112 168 49.5 63.9
40 7 383 380 152 228 50.2 64.8
40 7 393 320 128 192 50.8 65.6
40 7 403 280 112 168 50.2 64.8
40 7 413 260 104 156 49.8 64.4
40 7 423 260 104 156 50.9 65.7
40 7 433 260 104 156 49.4 63.8
40 8 383 360 144 216 50.7 65.5
40 8 393 300 120 180 50.3 64.9
40 8 403 270 108 162 50.3 65.0
40 8 413 250 100 150 49.6 64.0
40 8 423 250 100 150 50.8 65.7
40 8 433 250 100 150 50.0 64.5
40 8 443 270 108 162 50.0 64.6
40 8 423 260 104 156 50.9 65.7
40 8 433 260 104 156 49.4 63.8
50 3 393 450 225 225 50.2 64.8
50 3 403 370 185 185 50.5 65.2
50 3 413 320 160 160 50.85 65.7
50 3 423 310 155 155 50.5 65.27
50 3 433 350 175 175 50.2 64.9
50 4 393 350 175 175 50.7 65.5
50 4 403 290 145 145 50.2 64.8
50 4 413 260 130 130 50.2 64.8
50 4 423 250 125 125 49.4 63.9
50 4 433 270 135 135 49.5 63.99
50 5 393 300 150 150 50.5 65.3
50 5 403 260 130 130 50.9 65.7
50 5 413 230 115 115 49.4 63.9
50 5 423 230 115 115 50.3 65.1
50 5 433 240 120 120 49.9 64.5
50 6 393 270 135 135 50.2 64.8
50 6 403 240 120 120 50.8 65.7
50 6 413 220 110 110 50.4 65.1
50 6 423 210 105 105 49.2 63.6
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009
J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586 581
For Evaluation Only.
Table 1 (Continued )

Initial feed Pressure (atm) Temperature (K) Feed rate (kg/h) Urea in feed Water in feed Ammonia CO2 (kg/h)
concentration (wt%) (kg/h) (kg/h) (kg/h)

50 6 433 220 110 110 49.6 64.1

50 7 393 250 125 125 49.8 64.3
50 7 403 220 110 110 49.5 63.9
50 7 413 210 105 105 50.3 65.0
50 7 423 200 100 100 49.0 63.4
50 7 433 210 105 105 50.0 64.6
50 7 443 230 115 115 50.7 65.5
50 8 383 290 145 145 50.5 65.2
50 8 393 240 120 120 50.1 64.7
50 8 403 220 110 110 51.0 65.9
50 8 413 200 100 100 49.5 64.0
50 8 423 200 100 100 50.5 65.3
50 8 433 200 100 100 49.6 64.0
50 8 443 220 110 110 51.2 66.1

for calculating the output of ammonia varying the temperature, temperature and pressure) on the production of ammonia at
pressure, input feed rate and reactor volume in ASPEN Plus. constant reaction time and constant reactor volume is shown in
Fig. 4. A maximum production of ammonia achieved 64 kg/h at inlet
3.1.1. Continuous stirred-tank reactor feed concentration 50 wt% of urea and pressure 6 atm in the CSTR.
The single effect of temperature on production of ammonia
study for CSTR is presented in Fig. 2. The ammonia output increase
with increase in temperature initially and reaches a maximum
after which it starts decreasing with increase in temperature. Thus
it will have a point of maximum output for ammonia at a particular
temperature when other parameters (pressure, feed rate, reactor
volume) are kept constant. This maximum output will be at
temperature around 423 K.
The effect of pressure on production of ammonia can be seen
from Fig. 3 keeping temperature, feed flow rate and reactor volume
constant. It observed that there is increase in output of ammonia
with pressure till some point and after this change in output will
become very less with increase in pressure. After crossing this
point it can consider that ammonia output does not vary with
pressure.
The three dimensional response surfaces which were con-
structed to show the most important two variables (reaction

Fig. 9. (a) Plot of velocity vector colored by velocity magnitude along the wall of
reactor (m/s); (b) plot of velocity vector colored by velocity magnitude along the
Fig. 8. 3D geometry of reactor with meshing created in Gambit (front view). impeller of reactor (m/s).
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009
582 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
For Evaluation Only.
increase in output of ammonia with pressure till some point and
after this change in output will become very less with increase in
pressure. After crossing this point it can consider that ammonia
output does not vary with pressure.
In Fig. 7 shows the three dimensional response surfaces, the
combined effect of reaction temperature and pressure on
production of ammonia at constant reaction time and inlet feed
concentration. A maximum production of ammonia achieved
80 kg/h at inlet feed concentration 50 wt% of urea and pressure
6 atm in the PFR.

3.1.3. Comparison of reactors performance

Fig. 10. Contours of static pressure (Pascal) along the impeller of reactor (front
view).
3.1.2. Plug flow reactor
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the production of ammonia is
function of temperatures. It increases exponentially with increase
in temperatures. The ammonia output increases with increase in
temperature initially and reaches a maximum after which it starts
decreasing with increase in temperature. Thus it will have a point
of maximum output for ammonia at a particular temperature
when other parameters (pressure, feed rate, reactor volume) are
kept constant.
From Fig. 6 it can seen that the effect of pressure on production
of ammonia in PFR. The simulation run keeping temperature, feed
flow rate and reactor volume constant. It was observed that there is
From the above study, it observe that for same reaction
conditions and same feed rate, the output of ammonia is slightly
more in the case of PFR than in CSTR. But there are certain problems
that are associated with use of PFR. Handling of Plug Flow reactor is
difficult. Also there is the chance of solid deposition (ammonium
carbamate) which will cause problems to the flow in case of PFR.
But this does not happen in case of CSTR as there is continuous
agitation. Therefore to avoid the above said problems it decided to
use CSTR for the hydrolysis process even though yield is slightly
more in case of PFR. Now it needs to find out optimization the
reaction conditions and feed rate that should be given for obtaining
50 kg/h ammonia as product in CSTR. There may be different sets of
conditions possible. It needs to consider the cost as well as the
problems that arise in each case.
3.1.4. Optimization production of ammonia
Table 1 gives the temperature and feed rate required in a
pressure range of 3–8 atm to give the desired output of 50 kg/h
ammonia production at various concentrations of urea in water. It
observed as the concentration of urea is increased there is large

Fig. 11. Contours for temperature plots at different reaction times (a) 1.5 min, (b) 2.5 min, (c) 5 min, and (d) 7 min.
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2009
J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586 583
For Evaluation Only.

Fig. 12. Contours for production of ammonium carbamate plots at different reaction times (a) 3 min, (b) 12 min, and (c) 30 min.

decrease in the amount of water in the solution required and also a
small amount of decrease in case of urea also. With decrease in the
quantity of water the heat requirement will also be lessened
greatly along with the requirement of urea which is desirable. But
it cannot go beyond 50% concentration as the problem of solubility
of urea in water arises. So it will fix our concentration to be 50%
urea by weight. In each case it can see that the optimum
temperature is 413–423 K as this is the range where the minimum
amount of urea is required to get the desired output. Also the
optimum pressure will be between 5 atm and 6 atm. From the
ASPEN Plus simulations it finds out that the volume of the reactor
required to carry out the process must be 20 l.
3.2. CFD simulations
A computational technology that enables us to study the
dynamics of things that flow is CFD. Using CFD, we can build a
computational model that represents a system or device that we
want to study. Then apply the fluid flow physics and chemistry to
this virtual prototype, and the software will output a prediction of
the fluid dynamics and related physical phenomena. Therefore,
CFD is a sophisticated computationally based design and analysis
technique. CFD software gives us the power to simulate flows of
gases and liquids, heat and mass transfer, moving bodies,
multiphase physics, chemical reaction, fluid-structure interaction
and acoustics through computer modeling [54–57].
In the present work, the system investigated consists of a flat
bottom stirred cylindrical reactor (diameter, T and liquid height, H
both equal to 132 mm) with impeller having two sets of blades on.
The shaft (diameter is 5 mm) of the impeller is concentric with the
reactor axis and extends to a distance of 10 mm from the bottom of
the reactor. A standard Rushton turbine (diameter, D = T/
3 = 100 mm) is used in all the simulations. The impeller off-
bottom clearance is (C = 10 mm) measured from the agitator mid-
plane.
A commercial grid-generation tool (GAMBIT 2.0 of Fluent Inc.,
USA) is used to model the geometry and to generate the body-fitted
grids. It is very important to use an adequate number of
computational cells while numerically solving the governing
equations over the solution domain. With the available dimensions
of the reactor three-dimensional geometry is created. For meshing,
tetrahedral meshes are used for reactor. Based on our previous
experience and some preliminary numerical experiments, about
300 computational cells are used for the simulations. As the whole
study is based on the reaction in the reactor, following is a gambit
diagram of a 3-D reactor, which has impellor with two sets of
blades on it as shown in Fig. 8. Using Fluent the created geometry
by Gambit can be read and simulation is done. For analysis of the
results the contour plots and vector plots are analyzed. Residual
plot is observed continuously during simulation. Accuracy and
convergence are very important during simulation. Current study
involves two things: one is to create three-dimensional geometry
in Gambit along with the meshing, and second is to know the
general procedure to simulate this reactor. Analysis of the result is
also important to know the flow field and pressure distribution.
Computations are carried out for constant impeller rotational
speed of 1200 rpm. For the given operating condition, the flows in
the stirred vessel are in a turbulent region. Wall functions are used
584 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586

Fig. 13. Contours for production of ammonia plots at different reaction times (a) 2 min, (b) 4 min, (c) 10 min, (d) 12 min, (e) 16 min, (f) 20 min, and (g) 30 min.

to specify the wall boundary conditions. The top surface of the (residues less than 106). Fig. 9(a) shows the velocity magnitude
liquid pool is assumed to be flat and is modeled as symmetry (zero plot indicted along the rector wall, where Fig. 9(b) shows the
normal velocity and zero shear stress). All the computations are velocity magnitude plot indicated along the impeller. Fig. 9(a) and
carried out until the desired convergence criteria are satisfied (b) shows the velocity magnitude plot indicated by the velocity
 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
Fig. 14. Contours for production of carbon dioxide plots at different reaction times (a) 3 min, (b) 8 min, and (c) 10 min.
vectors and it is observed that the turbulent flow which goes inside
our batch reactor. This turbulence only ensures the proper mixing
and the uniformity of temperature and reactants throughout the
reactor. This distribution of the absolute pressure contour can also
be seen from Fig. 10. Colors indicated in this figure have the same
significance as that of Fig. 9 (b). This model also indicates that at
the operating conditions with an assured almost perfect mixing.
The model was developed through simulation helps to answer a
lot of questions about the dependency of the reaction on its
parameters. Although the assumptions in the model tilt it towards
the ideal side, it still able to predict the nature of the reaction and
the changes, in accordance to the variation it brings about in the
reaction parameters. The simulation was performed for different
reaction times, keeping other parameters constant, as temperature
423 K, initial feed concentration equals to 50 wt% of urea and
stirring speed equals to 1200 rpm. The effect of temperature at
different reaction time can be seen from Fig. 11. The model predicts
the contours temperature plots performance of the reactor more
accurately, see also Fig. 11. It is evident from Fig. 12 that, the
percent conversion of ammonium carbamate increases with
increase in reaction time. Fig. 13 shows the contours for ammonia
i.e. the initial molar concentration of urea and its concentration
after reaction time at constant reaction temperature with constant
stirring speed, 1200 rpm, and initial feed concentration 50 wt% to
urea. Also from Fig. 14, it is clear that with the increase the reaction
time the production of carbon dioxide increases. From the figure, it
has been a very clear idea about the dependence of the reaction on
time. As the contours are based on region wise concentrations,
therefore in order to get the numerical value of concentration, it
assumed it to be averaged over the entire area.
585
4. Conclusions
A model was developed for the hydrolysis of urea for production
of ammonia using the ASPEN Plus simulator. To provide such a
hydrolysis model, several ASPEN Plus unit operation blocks were
combined and, where necessary, kinetic expressions and hydro-
dynamic model were developed using data and models from the
early study. It found out the output of ammonia varying
temperature, pressure, initial feed flow rate at various concentra-
tion of urea solution with the help of Aspen Plus. In both CSTR and
PFR, it observed that the output of ammonia will increase with
increase in temperature up to a certain point and then decreases
when the other parameters (pressure, feed flow, reactor volume)
are kept constant. Also the output increases with increase in
pressure but after some point the increase is very small. It was
observed that for same reaction conditions and same reactor
volume, the output of ammonia is slightly more in case of PFR than
in CSTR. But it end up using CSTR in design as the reactions is
heterogeneous and deposition of solids may occur in PFR. But this
deposition does not take place in CSTR as there is continuous
agitation.
Also a computational fluid dynamics model was used to
simulate the hydrolysis of urea for synthesis of ammonia. The
study capable of modeling fluid flow, heat transfer, and chemical
reactions in complex reactor geometries. Detailed parametric
studies were performed to improve the urea conversion in the
presence of double impeller and thermal conditions. A detailed
fluid flow, heat transfer, and chemical reactions simulation of
ammonia was also performed. The simulations revealed various
details about mixing non-idealities inside the reactor chamber.
586 J.N. Sahu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 16 (2010) 577–586
This study demonstrates that CFD simulation is a useful tool for
diagnosing hydrolysis reactor mixing pathologies and for identify-
ing practical countermeasures that could improve reactor perfor-
mance.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial
support to the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), New
Delhi, India, has extended towards them for this work.
References
[1] Won-Joon Choi, Byoung-Moo Min, Byung-Hyun Shon, Jong-Beom Seo, Kwang-
Joong Oh, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 15 (5) (2009) 635.
[2] Gang-Woo Lee, Byung-Hyun Shon, Jeong-Gun Yoo, Jong-Hyeon Jung, Kwang-
Joong Oh, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (4) (2008) 457.
[3] Young-Ok Park, Keon-Wang Lee, Young-Woo Rhee, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 15 (1) (2009)
36.
[4] H.B.H. Cooper, H.W. Spencer, U.S. Patent Application No. US 6,730,280 B2 (2004).
[5] H.W. Spencer, H.J. Peters, U.S. Patent Application No. US 6,436,359 B1 (2002).
[6] R.M. Heck, Catal. Today 53 (1999) 519.
[7] F. Nakajima, I. Hamada, Catal. Today 29 (1996) 109.
[8] P. Forzatti, Catal. Today 62 (2000) 51.
[9] M. Devadas, O. Kröcher, M. Elsener, A. Wokaun, N. Söger, M. Pfeifer, Y. Demel, L.
Mussmann, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 67 (3/4) (2006) 187.
[10] J.H. Goo, M.F. Irfan, S.D. Kim, S.C. Hong, Chemosphere 67 (4) (2007) 718.
[11] H. Bai, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 1231.
[12] K.P. Resnik, J.T. Yeh, H.W. Pennline, Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manage 4 (2004) 89.
[13] A. Jaworek, A. Krupa, T. Czech, J. Electrostat. 65 (2007) 133.
[14] J.H. Harker, P.M. Pimparkar, J. Inst. Energy 61 (8) (1988) 134.
[15] K.J. McLean, Inst. Electr. Eng. Rev. 135 (6) (1988) 347.
[16] G.S.P. Castle, IEEE Trans. Ind. App. 16 (2) (1980) 297.
[17] J. Dalmon, D. Tidy, Atmos. Environ. 6 (1972) 721.
[18] W.A. Baxter, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 18 (12) (1968) 817.
[19] J.T. Reese, J. Greco, J. Air Pollut. Control Ass. 18 (8) (1968) 523.
[20] R.R. Crynack, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electrostatic
Precipitation, Budapest, (1996), p. 394.
[21] J.S. Chang, H. Thompson, P.C. Looy, A.A. Berezin, A. Zukeran, T. Ito, S. Jayaram, J.D.
Cross, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electrostatic Pre-
cipitation, Budapest, (1996), p. 2.
[22] E.B. Dismukes, J. Air Pollut. Control Ass. 25 (2) (1975) 152.
[23] R. Salib, R. Keeth, Presented at the 2003 Mega Symposium, 2003.
[24] H.W. Spencer, J. Peters, J. Fisher, Presented at the 2001 Mega Symposium,
2001.
[25] S. Bhattacharya, H.J. Peters, J. Fisher, H.W. Spencer, Presented at the 2003 Mega
Symposium, 2003.
[26] T.A. Del Prato, H.G. Spicer, United States Patent Application No. 20,050,260,108 A1
(2005).
[27] B. Brooks, W.A. Jessup, B.W. Macarthur, U.S. Patent Application No. US 6,887,449
B2 (2005).
[28] E. Jacob, S. Käfer, W. Müller, A. Lacroix, A. Herr, U.S. Patent Application No. US
6,928,807 B2 (2005).
[29] D.C. Young, U.S. Patent Application No. US 5,252,308 (1993).
[30] F.E. Spokoyny, U.S. Patent Application No. US 2006/0147361 A1 (2006).
[31] R.T. Glesmann, J.J. Titus, JR. H.G. Walker, U.S. Patent Application 2003/0118494 A1
(2003).
[32] E. Jacob, E. Stiermann, U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0045835 A1 (2006).
[33] L. Hofmann, K. Rusch, U.S. Patent Application No. US 6,471,927 B2 (2002).
[34] D.L. Wojichowski, U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0211024 A1 (2003).
[35] T.V. Harpe, R. Pachaly, J.E. Holfmann, U.S. Patent Application No. US 5,240,688
(1993).
[36] D.G. Jones, U.S. Patent Application No. US 5,827,490 (1998).
[37] V. Lagana, S.N. S.p.A., U.S. Patent Application No. US 5,985,224 (1999).
[38] K.K. Mahalik, J.N. Sahu, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, J. Hazard. Mater., in press,
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.053.
[39] J.N. Sahu, P. Gangadharan, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48
(2009) 727.
[40] J.N. Sahu, K.K. Mahalik, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47
(2008) 4689.
[41] J.N. Sahu, K.K. Mahalik, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, J. Hazard. Mater. 164 (2009)
659.
[42] J.N. Sahu, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 2705.
[43] J.N. Sahu, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, Asia-Pacific J. Chem. Eng. 4 (2009) 462.
[44] J.N. Sahu, A.V. Patwardhan, B.C. Meikap, Asia-Pacific J. Chem. Eng., in press,
doi:10.1002/apj.362.
[45] L.P. Schell, U.S. Patent Application No. US 4,087,513 (1978).
[46] M.R. Rahimpur, Chem. Eng. Proces. 43 (2004) 1299.
[47] B. Claudel, E. Brousse, G. Shehadeh, Thermochim. Acta 102 (1986) 357.
[48] A.M. Isla, A.H. Irazoqui, M.C. Genoud, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32 (1993) 2662.
[49] O. Boonthamtirawuti, W. Kiatkittipong, A. Arpornwichanop, P. Praserthdam, S.
Assabumrungrat, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 15 (4) (2009) 451.
[50] A. Arpornwichanop, K. Koomsup, S. Assabumrungrat, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (6)
(2008) 796.
[51] R. Sotudeh-Gharebaagh, R. Legros, J. Chaouki, J. Paris, Fuel 77 (4) (1998) 327.
[52] H. Weifeng, S. Hongye, H. Yongyou, C. Jian, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 14 (5) (2006) 584.
[53] F.H. Geuzebroek, L.H.J.M. Schneiders, G.J.C. Kraaijveld, P.H.M. Feron, Energy 29
(2004) 1241.
[54] L. Rudniak, P.M. Machniewski, A. Milewska, E. Molga, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004)
5233.
[55] H. Yapici, G. Basturk, Comp. Chem. Eng. 28 (2004) 2233.
[56] P. Magnico, P. Fongarland, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006) 1217.
[57] R. Sripriya, M.D. Kaulaskar, S. Chakraborty, B.C. Meikap, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007)
6391.