Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 45

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

GANDHINAGAR

CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol


Autothermal Reformer

B.TECH THESIS REPORT


Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
B.Tech. Honours
In

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Atul Bhargav
Mechanical Engineering Department
IIT Gandhinagr

By
Dhwanil Shukla
Shubhangi Bansude
Senior Undergraduate | Mechanical Engineering

To

Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar


Mechanical Engineering Department

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

1. INTRODUCTION TO AUTO THERMAL REFORMING


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. There are three basic types of reforming processes. Namely: Steam
Reforming, Catalytic Partial Oxidation and Autothermal Reforming.
The chemical reactions for the Steam Reforming and Catalytic Partial Oxidation are
given as:1. Steam Reforming:

Endothermic Process
(

2. Catalytic Partial Oxidation: Exothermic 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.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of reforming processes

5|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

The projects focus on study of ethanol autothermal reforming is mainly because


ethanol can be obtained by agricultural feedstock and thus is a renewable source,
making electricity generation renewable.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

To build a non-isothermal, transient CFD model for ethanol autothermal


reformer (ATR) to study its characteristics

To optimize the design of reformer from systems perspective in order to


maximize infrastructure efficiency of fuel cell system

Fabricate the simulation optimized reformer and validate simulation results by


experiments.

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.

4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP D ESIGN


The experimental setup design is based on constraints like permissible temperature
range at different parts of the reactor, required state of inflowing reactants,
commercially available instruments and components, intended experiments etc.
Following figures (Figure 2) show thefinal setup design which has got developed after
many revisions done as we proceeded making the setup.

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.

4.1 SETUP DESIGN DESCRIPTION


The setup is built around the reaction chamber (or catalytic reactor) and all the other
components can be thought of as serving this catalytic chamber. Following are the
features and points considered while designing the setup:7|P a ge
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

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).

The metered flow of steam is converted to high temperature steam in by method


of inline steam generation using an electric furnace. Inline steam generation
required to ensure that mass flow rate of steam entering reactor at any instant is
same as that of water controlled by LMFCs or syringe pump.

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

All the thermocouples, temperature controllers and pressure transducers are


connected to a monitoring/controlling PC via DAQ.
8|P a ge

CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

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

Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet of the reactants should be more than


98% for ensuring that the results obtained from experiments correspond to
reactions happening at the reactant proportion which was set by setting flow
rates of each reactant

2. Residence time

Prolonged exposure of ethanol with air at high temperatures causes CO


formation which is often responsible for poisoning of catalyst. Hence, it is
required to ensure that the time for which ethanol vapour and air remain in
contact before reaching reaction chamber is very small.

3. Even velocity distribution at outlet

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

As the pre-mixer has to me manufactured by using in-house facilities or by


outsourcing to a local vendor, care has to be taken that the design is simple to
fabricate. Failing to do so may result in increased cost of manufacturing and
low quality of the manufactured pre-mixer

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

Mass fraction of Ethanol at Outlet

Mass fraction of Ethanol on the centre plane

Stream Lines Plot

Figure 3.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 1

Average Residence Time: 0.3s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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

Mass fraction of Ethanol at Outlet

Mass fraction of Ethanol on the centre plane

Stream Lines Plot

Figure 4.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 2

Average Residence Time: 0.3s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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

Angle of inlet ports increased w.r.t vertical as compared to previous design to


reduce axial flow velocities, increase momentum utilized for mixing and to
ensure that gasses mix much before they reach the outlet.
Average Cross section area reduced to address residence time.
The side walls are curved to ensure smooth flow of the gasses to get even flow
velocity distribution at outlet.

CAD Model

Mass fraction of Ethanol at Outlet

Mass fraction of Ethanol on the centre plane

Stream Lines Plot

Figure 5.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 3

Average Residence Time: 0.113s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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

Neck thinned down further to reduce residence time.


Curvature of cavity reduced to improve manufacturability
12 | P a g e

CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

CAD Model

Mass fraction of Ethanol at Outlet

Mass fraction of Ethanol on the centre plane

Stream Lines Plot

Figure 6.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 4

Average Residence Time: 0.072 s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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

Mass fraction of Ethanol at Outlet

Mass fraction of Ethanol on the centre plane

Stream Lines Plot

Figure 7.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 5

Average Residence Time: 0.072 s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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

Mass Fraction of Ethanol at outlet

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

Chart 1.Grid Dependence Study

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

Figure 8.Mesh diagram on pre-mixer design 5

15 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at


outlet

Surface uniformity plot showing mixing efficiency


1

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

Due to difficulties faced while trying to manufacture cylindrical reactor of 1 cm


diameter owing to brittle nature monolith material, it was decided to change the reactor
cross section to a square with dimensions of 4 cm 4 cm with monolith dimensions of
3 cm3 cm. This change in dimensions required change in the pre-mixer design. As the
intended flow rate for the experiments was still the same, simply scaling of the designs
was not a solution as that would have resulted in extremely high residence time. Hence,
to keep residence time within acceptable limits, the pre-mixer design was changed
radically. The final design which is being implemented is described below as Design 6
DESIGN 6:
ATTEMPT TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGE IN REACTOR DIMENSIONS

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

Mole Fraction Plot

Stream Line Plot

Figure 9.Figures of Pre-mixer Design 6

Average Residence Time: 0.044 s


Surface Uniformity of Ethanol at Outlet:

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.

Figure 10.CAD model of Catalytic Reactor

5.3 STEAM + ETHANOL VAPOUR GENERATING FURNACE


The reactor requires steam + ethanol vapour mixture at the temperature of 3000 C. And
this is done by an electric furnace. The method of vapour generation used is called inline vapour generation as here, no boiler vessels are used. Liquid changes its phase in
the tubing itself. This kind of heating is preferred in applications requiring fine control
over the mass flow rates of vapour like this one.
From the thermodynamic calculations for estimating minimum required wattage and
temperature rating of the furnace, it was found that to get the temperature of steam +
ethanol mixture at 3000 C without heating ethanol directly, the steam temperature
required was ~7500 C. To get steam at such a high temperatures is difficult and the
furnace required for the purpose would also need to have temperature rating in the
order of ~12000 C to make heat transfer to steam at such temperatures possible. To
solve the issue, it was proposed to implement two passes of heating. The first pass heats
water to generate steam at around 550 0 C which is enough to vaporise ethanol from its
liquid phase and give the steam +ethanol mixture stream at 1050 C which is higher than
the boiling points of both. Once both the reactants are in vapour phase, they are heated
together up to 3000 C by passing them through a second pass through the same furnace.
The design of the in-line vapour generator for the experiments purpose is shown in the
figure 11. The vapour generator made consists of two concentric, tightly wound helical

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

5.4 SYRINGE PUMPS


Syringe pumps are normally used in hospitals and are made for precisely controlled
drug delivery. The accuracy with which they deliver fluid made them the first choice for
the purpose of delivering the liquids. The syringe pumps procured for the experiment
setup are pre-programmable. The accuracy of syringe pumps was tested by measuring
its efflux on a micro-weight scale and comparing it with the expected efflux. It was
found that the error in the pumps delivery was less than 0.02%.
One of the biggest problems associated with the use of syringe pumps is that
experiments cannot be performed continuously because of frequent need for refilling
the syringe. The other being, that the syringe pumps do not have any means by which it
can communicate with a PC and hence be controlled by it. Hence, the syringe pumps are
proposed to be replaced by Liquid Mass Flow Controllers which will solve both of these
problems.
Figure 12 shows the syringe pump that is being used.

Figure 12.Photograph of syringe pump being used

19 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

5.5 MASS FLOW CONTROLLERS


Mass flow controllers are responsible for providing precise mass flow rates of gases to
the reactor. They can communicate with the PC and can be controlled via a LabView
program. Figure 13 is photograph of a Mass flow controller and Table 2 is its technical
specifications table.

Figure 13.Photograph of Mass Flow Controller

Table 2. Technical Specifications of MFC

20 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

5.6 THERMOCOUPLES AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLLER


K type thermocouples (Figure 14) have been used in
the setup owing to their low cost and wide temperature
range (-2000 C to 13500 C). In the setup, thermocouples
are being used for temperature control of the vapour
generating furnace, air heating furnace and are used for
monitoring temperatures inside the reactor at different
locations. The thermocouples employed for reaction
monitoring are connected to DAQ (Data Acquisition
System)
which
communicates with
the PC to display all Figure 14.Photograph of a K type
Thermocouple
the thermocouple
temperatures. Calibration is a necessary step in
temperature reading through a thermocouple.
Thermocouples used for temperature control are
connected to temperature controller (Figure 15).
Controller monitors the temperature and rate of
change of temperature and decides power to be
supplied to the furnace. The temperature of the output streams is controlled by varying
of power supply to furnace through the controller.
Figure 15.Photograph of Temperature
Controller

5.7 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM (DAQ) &LABVIEW


All the signals coming from sensors are fed to NI Data Acquisition system. The DAQ
processes and passes the signals to a PC through a USB cable. The data is read through
LabView software. All components like MFCs and furnaces are controlled through a
LabView software program. Figure 16is a screen shot of a GUI (Graphical User
Interface) created on LabView to monitor temperatures.

21 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Figure 16.GUI for monitoring temperatures developed in La bView

6. EFFECTIVE MONOLITH PROPERTIES FOR POROUS MEDIA


MODELLING

6.1 POROUS MEDIA APPROAC H


A number of experimental and numerical modeling studies for autothermal
reforming of hydrocarbons in a monolith reactor have been reported in literature.
However, most of these studies focus on the single channel approach. They consider
a single channel of the monolith to be representative of all channels. Though,
experimental results and a system design perspective make it imperative to maintain
the temperature at all locations inside the reactor, and also to recover the heat that
is generated. This requires understanding of the interdependence among heat
transfer, fluid flow and chemical reactions. To capture temperature and
concentration gradients along the radial and axial directions, modeling just one
channel is not adequate.
To account for these, a 3-dimensional model of the monolith-based ATR has to be
developed. This 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 thus, modeled as a porous media, with the catalytically active surface
area modeled as a part of the medium itself.
In our experimental setup actual reactor is cordierite monolith with rectangular
channels coated with Rh/CeO 2 catalyst. Gases flow through these channels and
autothermal reforming (ATR) reactions take place at the surface sites of catalyst. Our
aim was to develop 3-D CFD model for reactor as mentioned above. But before
developing a model it was necessary to find out required properties of a porous
media which is representing a monolith reactor. This properties includes
permeability of the medium, wash-coat thickness of catalyst layer, axial and radial
thermal conductivities etc. The permeability and effective thermal conductivity in
22 | 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.

Figure 17(a). Geometry used for permeability study

Figure 17(b). Meshing in the geometry

GRID DEPENDENT STUDY


In order to get optimum grid size for simulation grid dependence study is done.
Pressure drop across the length is taken as a reference variable. Theoretical value of
pressure drop is obtained from following equation.

Where,

is friction factor. For laminar flow

is given by relation:

23 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Values of various parameters used for calculation are tabulated in table 3:


Parameter
Density of fluid,
Length of reactor,
Inlet velocity of fluid,
Viscosity of fluid,
Hydraulic diameter,

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

100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000


Grid Size

Pressure Drop, Pa

Thereotical value

Chart 3.Grid dependent study for monolith simulations

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

Table 4.Properties of Monolith and fluid used for study

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

Pressure drop per unit length, (Pa/m)


Chart 4.Plot used for finding permeability

6.3 AXIAL CONDUCTIVITY OF MONOLITH REACTOR


Developed CFD model is later used for getting equivalent conductivity of
representative porous media in axial and radial direction. Geometry for this case is
slightly different from previous case and is shown in figure 18(a).Mesh used for
computation is also shown in figure 18(b).Mesh uses same base size as above.

26 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Figure18.Geometry and Mesh

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:
(

Axial conductivity of a porous media is obtained by maintaining inlet at 300 0 C and


outlet of reactor at 750 0 C and measuring heat transfer between these two regions.
Net heat flux was observed to be 0.096 W. Relation between heat flux ( ), heat
transfer area( ) , temperature difference ( ), and thermal conductivity ( ) of a
medium is given by
Using this relation, equivalent conductivity of porous media in axial direction was
obtained as 0.8 W/m-K.
Axial temperature profiles along four different line probes parallel to material axis
are obtained (Chart 5). Considering centre of positive Y face as origin, positions of
these line probes are as shown in table 6.
Line probe
Probe 1
Probe 2
Probe 3
Probe 4

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

Table 6.Positions of axial line probes

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

6.4 RADIAL CONDUCTIVITY OF MONOLITH REACTOR


Previous approach cannot be used to determine radial conductivity of a reactor as
exact heat transfer area in the radial direction is unknown. For these two models
with different geometries are used. First model was same as used to determine axial
conductivity but boundary conditions used were different. In this case fluid inside
the central channel is removed and walls of this channel are kept at 300 0 C (Figure
19). Outermost walls of reactor are put at 750 0 C and heat flux between two is
measured using simulation. It was observed that heat flux of 62.6 W flows from high
temperature surface to low temperature face.
Later second model is simulated same physics but geometry of representative
porous media (Figure 20). This geometry is simply two concentric rectangular
channels. Inner channel was given a constant temperature boundary condition of
3000 C and outer channel temperature is maintained at 750 0 C. Conductivity of
equivalent media is changed and corresponding heat flux values are recorded as
shown in chart 6. It is evident from the figure heat flux of 62.6 W corresponds to
equivalent conductivity of 0.5 W/Mk.

28 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Figure 19.Nine channelled monolith with boundary conditions

Figure 20.Geometry and Mesh of channelled monolith (left) and porous material (right) used for
simulations

700.0

Heat Flux, (W)

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.

6.5 WASHCOAT THICKNESS OF CATALYST


Catalyst used for coating is prepared by preparing a catalyst solution. The uncoated
monolith is then dipped into the solution till it soaks up the solution into it. The
monoliths are then taken out of the solution and placed in a furnace at 400 C for 10
minutes. The monoliths are then taken out of the furnace and allowed to cool.
Wash coat thickness is important parameter in determining active surface area of the
catalyst. This is obtained by difference between the channel wall thickness of catalyst
coated and uncoated monolith (Figure 22andFigure 23). As channel dimensions are
very small it is not possible to measure this thickness with physical means. Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM) images of catalyst channels are taken for cross section area
of channels in coated and uncoated case. Images produced were calibrated using
software accompanied with SEM microscope. These images were imported into image
analysis software naming GATAN microscopy. Images were analysed and average
thickness of coated and uncoated monolith wall thickness is obtained. Figures also show
the data points taken for averaging.
Calibration provides information about how much of pixels are there in a unit length
(Here 1 m). Using GATAN image analysis tools, the average thickness in pixels was
obtained which was later converted it into metric units.

30 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Figure 22.Sectional SEM image of uncoated monolith

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.

Figure 24.Sectional SEM image of coated monolith (finding channel dimensions)

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

CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

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

Table7.Parameters obtained from SEM image analysis

7. CFD MODELING OF AUTOTHERMAL REFORMING OF ETHANOL


Obtained values of conductivities, permeability and other parameters are used for
building CFD model to simulate the ATR reactions. Commercially available Star
CCM+ suite is used for the purpose. Flow is simulated as a steady state, laminar,
segregated flow for a homogenous reactor with surface reaction. The catalytically
active surface area is modeled as porous media. An integral part of the simulation is
the surface reaction mechanisms.
Modeling of chemical reaction needs developed reaction mechanisms. We had
reaction mechanism for autothermal reforming of methane from the literature.
Developed CFD model is simulated with these reactions. Following section describes
how developed model is used to simulate autothermal reforming of methane in a
reactor.
7.1 MODEL APPLICATION FOR AUTOTHERMAL REFORMING OF METHANE
Geometry and mesh:
Geometry and mesh of a porous media is shown in figure 25.Unlike the previous
case, here the trimmer mesh with prism layers at the boundaries has been used.
Trimmer mesh is structured mesh where mesh has rectangular cells. Base size used
is 0.4 mm. Number of prism layers at the boundaries are 5.

Figure 25.Geometry and mesh of a porous media

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)

(See Annexure 3:- Detailed Surface Chemistry mechanism for methane)

Thermo physical Properties:


Table 8 depicts the summary of various parameters used in the simulation with their
corresponding values.
34 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

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

Table8.parameters used in the simulation

Initial and Boundary conditions:


Initial and boundary conditions are tabulated in table 9 and table 10.
Initial Condition/Parameter
Mole fraction
CH4
H2O
O2
Temperature
Pressure
Velocity

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

Table 11.Line Probes in Axial Direction

Probes in radial direction:


Probe
Probe R1
Probe R2
Probe R3
Probe R4
Probe R5

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

Table 12.Line Probes in Radial Direction

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

Table 13.Axial and Radial plane probes

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

Mole Fraction of CH4-line-probe

Mole Fraction of H2O-line-probe

Mole Fraction of O2-line-probe

Mole Fraction of H2-line-probe

Mole Fraction of CO2-line-probe

Mole Fraction of CO-line-probe

Temperature , K

Chart 7.Plot for mole fractions with respect to time

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

Mole Fraction of CH4

0.5

Mole Fraction of CO

0.4

Mole Fraction of CO2

0.3

Mole Fraction of H2

0.2

Mole Fraction of H2O

0.1

Mole Fraction of O2

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Distance [0,0,1] Probe A1


Chart 10.Steady state mole fraction profiles in axial direction

38 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Figure 26.Plots of different quantities on mid axial plane

Temperature profile in axial direction is shown inchart11. Favourability of steam


reforming and partial oxidation with temperature explains this trend.

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

Figure27.Plots of Temperature, CH 4 , H 2 and CO in planes R2, R1 and R3

CONCLUSION

Following has been achieved in the project:


CFD model developed to simulate surface chemical reactions in porous
media
The model has been tested with Methane ATR reaction mechanism
Experimental setup with all components almost ready

41 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

FUTURE WORK

Ethanol ATR Modeling


Developing detailed reaction mechanism for ethanol ATR
Applying the developed model to simulate Ethanol ATR

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

reforming of hexadecane over a Rh/CeO2 catalyst in microchannels: Experimental and


numerical investigation, International J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009), 5108-5120

42 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

ANNEXURE 1:- FLOW RATE CALCULATIONS

Physical Properties of Ethanol


Molecular Mass (ME)
Liquid phase density (E)
Physical Properties of Water
Molecular Mass
(Mw)
Liquid phase density (w)
Reaction Requirement
S/C Ratio
Mass flow rate of Ethanol (mE)
Volume flow rate of Ethanol
Q E=
Moles of C per minute
NC= 2 x NE=
Moles of Steam per minute
Nw =
2 x NC
Mass flow rate of steam
mw =
Nw x M w
Volume flow rate of water
Qw =

=
=

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

ANNEXURE 2:- THERMODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS FOR STEAM GENERATOR

Thermal Properties of Ethanol


Boiling Point (BPE)
=
78.3 oC
Specific Heat Capacity (liquid) (CP(El))
=
2.44 kJ/kg-K
Specific Heat Capacity (vapour) (CP(Ev)) =
1.95 kJ/kg-K
Heat of Vapourisation (LV (E))
=
838.3 kJ/kg
Thermal properties of water
Enthalpy of Water at 25 oC (h25)
=
106 kJ/kg
Enthalpy of Water at 105 oC (h25)
=
2686.1 kJ/kg
o
Enthalpy of Water at 300 C (h300)
=
3051 kJ/kg
o
Enthalpy of Water at 550 C (h600)
=
3596.4 kJ/kg
Enthalpy of Water at 750 oC (h750)
=
3975 kJ/kg
Power Required to heat Ethanol:
PE = mE ((BPE - 25) CP(El) + LV (E) + (300 BPE) CP(Ev)))
PE = 0.701051 kJ/min
=
11.68 W
Power Required to heat Water:
Pw = mw (h300 - h25)
Pw = 1.4725 kJ/min
Minimum Power rating of Furnace:
P = PE + Pw

24.54 W
=

36.221 W
43 | P a g e

CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer

Required steam enthalpy for heating Ethanol to 300 0C directly


PE = (hrequired - h300) mw
hrequired = 3946.79 h750
Therefore, steam has to be heated upto 750 oC for getting the mixture at
300 oC

Required steam enthalpy for heating Ethanol to vapor state


PE mE (300-105) CP(Ev)) = (hrequired h105) mw
hrequired = 3547.33 h550
Therefore, steam has to be heated upto 550 oC for getting the Ethanol
vaporized and flowing with steam.

ANNEXURE 3:- DETAILED SURFACE CHEMISTRY MECHANISM FOR METHANE

44 | P a g e
CFD Simulations & Experimental validation of Ethanol Autothermal Reformer