Int. J. Chem. React. Eng.

2015; aop

Sim Yee Chin*, Anwaruddin Hisyam and Haniif Prasetiawan

Modeling and Simulation Study of an Industrial

Radial Moving Bed Reactor for Propane
Dehydrogenation Process

DOI 10.1515/ijcre-2014-0148 of 5.7% since 1991 and it is expected to continue growing

Abstract: An accurate model is required to optimize the
propane dehydrogenation reaction carried out in the
radial moving bed reactors (RMBR). The present study
modeled the RMBR using a plug flow reactor model
incorporated with kinetic models expressed in simple
power-law model. Catalyst activity and coke formation
were also considered. The model was solved numerically
by discretizing the RMBR in axial and radial directions.
The optimized kinetic parameters were then used to pre-
dict the trends of propane conversion, temperature, cat-
alyst activity and coke content in the RMBR along axial
and radial directions. It was found that the predicted
activation energies of the propane dehydrogenation, pro-
pane cracking and ethylene hydrogenation were in rea-
sonable agreement with the experimental values reported
in the literature. The model developed has accurately
predicted the reaction temperature profile, conversion
profile and catalyst coke content. The deviations of
these simulated results from the plant data were less
than 5%.
Keywords: radial moving bed reactor, propane dehydro-
genation, simulation, modelling, kinetic
1 Introduction
The growing consumption of propylene derivatives has
profoundly increased the propylene demand in recent
years. It has been increasing at an annual average rate
*Corresponding author: Sim Yee Chin, Department of Chemical and
Natural Resources Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
Lebuhraya Tun Razak, Gambang, 26300 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia,
E-mail: chin@ump.edu.my
Anwaruddin Hisyam, Department of Chemical and Natural Resources
Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak,
Gambang, 26300 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
Haniif Prasetiawan, Chemical Engineering Department, Semarang
State University, Gd. E1 Kampus Sekaran Gunungpati, Semarang,
Indonesia, 50229
at an average yearly rate of 3.8% from year 2005 until
2015(Wang, Xu, and Gao 2008; Lobera et al. 2008a;
Nexant 2012).
The disparity of supply and demand for propylene
has inspired the development of the on-purpose propy-
lene production technologies such as olefin metathesis
and propane dehydrogenation. Currently, the on-purpose
production of propylene from propane is more econom-
ical than the other methods like naphtha cracking or
other refinery processes due to the inexpensive price of
propane (Dooho 2013). Five licensed technologies are
available for propane dehydrogenation. There are
CATOFIN, Oleflex, Fluidized Bed Technology (FBD),
STAR Process and PDH from Linde/BASF. These technol-
ogies are different in terms of the type of catalyst, catalyst
regeneration method, reactor design and operating con-
dition (Sanfilippo and Miracca 2006).
Propane is mainly derived from the non-renewable nat-
ural gas and petroleum resources. The continuous con-
sumption of propane is depleting the natural gas and
petroleum supplies. The propylene productivity should be
maximized to sustain the propane dehydrogenation pro-
cess. It can be done by increasing the production yield
under the optimum operating conditions such as pressure,
temperature and H2/HC ratio (Chin et al. 2011). The propy-
lene production industries who adopt the propane dehydro-
genation process require an accurate reactor model before
the process is optimised to increase the productivity.
Bijani and Sahebdelfar (2008) have developed a sim-
ple model to predict the performance of a moving bed
reactor for isobutane dehydrogenation. The reactor was
assumed as a simple packed bed reactor. The predicted
conversion of the second reactor well matched with the
plant data. However, the conversion of first reactor was
underestimated while the conversion of third reactor was
overrated. Sahebdelfar et al. (2011) used discretization
method to model the radial moving bed reactors. The
conversion, catalyst activity, and temperature profile
were generated for the axial and radial directions of
the reactors. It was found that the error between the

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
2 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor
simulated and actual reactor outlet temperature was
approximately 30%. Besides, the deviation of the simu-
lated total conversion from the plant data was approxi-
mately 25%.It was claimed that the error could be
reduced by increasing the calculation step number.
To date, the radial moving bed reactor modeling and
simulation considering both the radial and axial varia-
tions for propane dehydrogenation was not reported in
the open literature. Chin et al. (2011) modelled the radial
moving bed reactor by assuming it was plug flow reactor.
The deviations of the predicted composition of H2, C2H4
and C2H6 from the plant data were 21%, 14% and 11%. It
was stated that these deviations may be attributed to the
omission of the variations of concentration, temperature
and reaction rate in the radial direction.
The aim of the present work is to model and simulate
a radial moving bed reactor for the propane dehydro-
genation considering both axial and radial variations.
The industrial plant data was used to support the kinetic
parameter estimation and model validation.
2 Model development and data
validation methodology
2.1 Radial moving bed reactor model
The commercial radial moving bed reactor for propane
dehydrogenation consists of a series of four reactors as
shown in Figure 1. The reactor comprises two perforated
coaxial cylinders to retain the catalysts. The feed gas
enters from the bottom of first reactor and crosses
radially through the catalyst bed that moves slowly
downwards through the reactor by gravitational force.
The catalyst from the first reactor is then collected in
the catalyst collector and lifted to the second reactor.
R-01 R-02 R-03
= Catalyst line
= Gas Process line
R = Reactor
H = Heater
FeedGas
H-01 H-02 H-03
Brought to you by | Monash University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
The outlet product from first reactor is fed to the second
reactor. After passing through the four reactors in series,
the catalyst at the outlet of last reactor is sent to the
continuous catalyst regeneration unit. The catalyst is
then regenerated and recycled back to the first reactor
for the next reaction cycle. The outlet temperature
decreases since the process is highly endothermic. Inter-
stage heaters are required to increase the inlet tempera-
ture (Bijani and Sahebdelfar 2008; Gyngazova et al. 2011;
Sahebdelfar et al. 2011; Farsi, Jahanmiri, and Rahimpour
2013).
2.2 Plant data reconciliation
Industrial plant data was required to validate the model
for propane dehydrogenation process. Thirteen sets of
data were taken at different operating days. It consists
of inlet and outlet temperature, inlet and outlet pres-
sure, inlet and inter-stage gas composition. Among
these data, only four sets of data were used to optimize
the reaction kinetic parameters due to its consistent
inter-stage gas composition. This data was obtained at
different reactor operating conditions, which were
denoted as Case 1, 2, 3 and 4. All the operating condi-
tions are given in range in Table 1 due to the confidenti-
ality of the plant data.
Table 1: Operating conditions of the reactor.
Variable Value
Hydrogen to hydrocarbon molar ratio, H/HC .–.
(mole/mole)
*WAIT, °C –
Inlet pressure, Pin (kPaG) –
Note: *WAIT is the weighted average inlet temperature; the integrated
temperature calculated using the inlet temperature of each reactor.
R-04
CCR Unit
Product
Deactivated Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the
Catalyst commercial propane dehydrogenation
H-04 process.
 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor 3

2.3 Mass balance
Mass balance equations for radial moving bed reactor
were governed based on the incremental volume of
ring-shaped reactor bed as shown in Figure 2. These
equations were shown in eqs (1) and (2).
Where CpA is the heat capacity of component A, ΔHRx, n, T
is the heat of reaction for reaction n at certain tempera-
ture (T) and TRef is the reference temperature, 25°C. Data
for calculating the heat capacity and heat of reaction are
taken from Yaws (1999).

− dFA + rn′ dW = 0 (1) 2.5 Kinetic model

dFA
= rn′ (2) 2.5.1 Propane dehydrogenation
dW

Propane dehydrogenation as shown in eq. (6) is known as

an endothermic equilibrium limited reaction. The ele-
vated temperatures and low pressures favor the forward
reaction and hence increasing the yield of propylene. It is
usually carried out at 600–650 °C under the pressure
(gauge) of 15–250 kPa in the presence of metal catalyst
such as platinum based catalyst.

k1
C3 H8 $ C3 H6 + H2 (6)
k−1

Where, k1 is the rate constant for forward reaction while

Figure 2: Volume increment of catalyst bed.
Where FA is molar flow rate of the components
ðA = C3 H8 , C3 H6 , C2 H6 , C2 H4 , H2 Þ, W is the weight of cata-
lyst and rn′ is the rate of disappearance of reactant in
reaction nðn = 1, 2, 3, 4Þ. Incremental weight of catalyst
ðdW Þ can be described using volume elements as eq.


dW = ρb .d π.r2 .z (3)
Where ρb is the bulk density of catalyst, dr and dz are the
elemental radius and height of RMBR respectively.
k − 1 is the rate constant for backward reaction.
Larsson, Henriksson, and Andersson (1998) found
that the power-law model gave the best fit to the experi-
mental data comparing to the other kinetic models for
propane dehydrogenation over Pt-Sn/Al2O3. To account
the catalyst deactivation, the reaction rate for propane
dehydrogenation is shown in eq. (7)
 
PC H PH
− r1 = ak1 PC3 H8 − ak − 1 PC3 H6 PH2 = ak1 PC3 H8 − 3 6 2
Keq
(7)
Where, a is the catalyst activity, r1 is the reaction rate of
propane dehydrogenation and PA is the partial pressure
of component A. Keq is the reaction equilibrium constant
for propane dehydrogenation and it can be written as a
function of temperature as shown in eq. (8).

Keq = expð20.5596 − 14.278=T ÞkPa (8)

2.4 Energy balance

The energy balance in the incremental volume of catalyst bed 2.5.2 Side reactions
can be written as eq. (4) and it can be simplified as eq. (5).
X
 X
 Beside propane dehydrogenation, the elevated tempera-
FA CpA T − TRef jW − FA CpA T − TRef jW + ΔW

 (4) ture in this process also promotes side reactions such
+ ðΔHRx, T Þ − rn′ ΔW = 0 propane cracking and hydrogenolysis. The propane is

 cracked into methane and ethylene as a result of catalytic
dT ðΔHRx, n, T Þ − rn′
= P (5) cracking on the catalyst surface. Meanwhile, the propane
dW FA Cpa
is reacted with hydrogen to produce methane and ethane

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
4 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor

through the hydrogenolysis reaction. Ethylene is then Kads = KA0 expð − ΔHA =RT Þ (18)
further hydrogenated to produce ethane (Chin et al.
Where ka0 and Ka0 are the exponential factor for kinetic
2011; Farjoo et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011; Sahebdelfar et al.
reaction and adsorption equilibrium constant, Ea is the
2012; Farsi, Jahanmiri, and Rahimpour 2013).
activation energy and ΔHa is the heat of adsorption.
The side reactions occurred during propane dehydro-
genation are described in eqs (9)–(10):
k2
C3 H8 ! CH4 + C2 H4 (9)
2.6 Numerical solution
k3
C2 H4 + H2 ! C2 H6 (10) In the present study, the catalyst bed is discretized into a
number of ring shapes at axial and radial directions. The
The rate equations for the proposed side reactions are discretized catalyst bed can be seen in Figure 3. The
shown in eqs (11)–(12). weight of discretized bed can be calculated using eq. (19).
− r2 = k2 PC3 H8 (11) W.Δz.Δr.½2R1 − ð2j − 1Þ.Δr
ΔWi, j =
 (19)
− r3 = k3 PC2 H4 PH2 (12) h. R22 − R21

Where k2 and k3 are the kinetic constants for propane

cracking and ethylene hydrogenation correspondingly.

2.5.3 Coke formation

Coke is mainly formed through the deep dehydrogena-

tion, condensation, polymerization, and cyclization of
hydrogen-deficient hydrocarbon species on the surface
of the catalyst (Sahoo et al. 2003; Li et al. 2011). The (a) (b)
coke precursors are normally aromatics and olefins parti-
cularly propylene in propane dehydrogenation reaction Figure 3: Illustration of (a) Full shape of catalyst bed (b) discretized
catalyst bed.
(Li et al. 2011). The mechanisms are shown in eqs (13)
and (14).

C3 H8 ! 3C + 4H2 (13) Where, i and j are the number of elements in the axial
and radial directions respectively. R1 and R2 are the bed
nC3 H6 ! 3nCH0.5 + 2.25nH2 (14)
inner and outer radius, h is the height of catalyst bed, Δr
The coking rate on catalyst surface can be represented and Δz are the elemental ring thickness and the height of
by eq. (15). ring respectively.
Equations (2), (5) and (15) for mass balance, energy
da kc PC3 H6
− = a (15) balance and catalyst activity were discretized to eqs
dt Cm ð1 + Kads PH2 Þ
(20)–(22) before it was solved numerically to simulate
Where Cm is the total concentration of the active sites, the RMBR.
kc is the coking rate constant and Kads is the adsorption
′
equilibrium constants. Once the catalyst activity was FAji, j + 1 = FAji, j + ΔWi, j rnji, j (20)
obtained, coke formation can be calculated using eq. (16): 
′ 
ðΔHRx, n, T Þ − rn
Cc = Cm ð1 − aÞ (16) Ti, j + 1 = Ti, j + 1 + ΔWi, j P (21)
FA CpA i, j
Where, Cc is the concentration of the active sites occupied   
kd PC3 H8 ai, j W
by the coke. ai + 1, j = ai, j − (22)
1 + Kads PH2 Us
The kinetic rate constants and adsorption equilibrium
constants in this work were estimated based on Arrhenius
The boundary conditions adopted are:
and van’t Hoff equations as shown in eqs. (17)–(18):
at z = 0, að1st reactorÞ = 1
kA = kA0 expð − EA =RT Þ (17) at r = 0, F = Fin ;T = Tin

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor 5

The calculation was started at the uppermost ring, Table 2: Kinetic constants of the proposed kinetic models.
from the inner radius to the outer radius, considering that
the feed gas entered the reactor from inner radius of the Parameter Value Unit
bed and the catalyst moved from top to bottom of the k1 k01 = 13.920 kmol/(kg.hr.kPa)
reactor. The inlet temperature of the first ring was used to E1 = 31.978 kJ/mol
calculate the reaction rate and outlet composition using k2 k02 = 1.573e6 kmol/(kg.hr.kPa)
eqs (7), (11)–(12), (17) and (20). The outlet temperature of E2 = 141.94 kJ/mol
k3 k03 = 3.3965 kmol/(kg.hr.kPa)
the first ring became the inlet temperature for the second
E3 = 149.41 kJ/mol
ring at the same row. It was calculated based on outlet
kd k0d = 1.097e-1 (kg.kPa.hr)−
composition at each ring using eq. (21). Catalyst activity Ed = 146.21 kJ/mol
for the first row was calculated based on the outlet tem- Kads K0ads = 5.553e-2 atm−
perature at each ring using eq. (22). These procedures ΔHads = 91.798 kJ/mol
were then repeated for the entire rings in the first row Cm = . g active site/g catalyst

and other rows of the catalyst bed. The calculation ended

at the lowest row of catalyst bed. Final outlet temperature
and composition values were obtained from the average
value at the outer radius. The catalyst activity value was
obtained from the average catalyst activity at the lowest
ring of the catalyst bed.
The differential equations in this paper were solved
using ode45 in MATLAB which adopting the forth order
of runge-kutta method. fminsearch in MATLAB was used
to solve to optimise the kinetic parameters. Equation (23)
shows the objective function for the kinetic parameter
optimisation (Agarwal and Stenger 2007).
X
2
min = FA, data − FA, predicted
Where FA, data and FA, predicted are the plant data and pre-
dicted molar flow rate of component A.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Kinetic parameter estimation
Kinetic parameters required for eqs (7), (11), (12) and (15)
were obtained by comparing the simulated mole fractions
of the major components in the reactor outlet with the
plant data. Table 2 shows all the values of the reaction
kinetic parameters. As shown in Table 3, the predicted
activation energies of the propane dehydrogenation and
side reactions in this work are comparable with the experi-
mental data reported in the literature. These kinetic data
were used for the simulation in the subsequent sections.
The corresponding parity plots for the mole fractions
of propane, propylene and hydrogen (components in the
main reaction) and the mole fractions of methane, ethane
and ethylene (products of the side reactions) are shown
(23) in Figure 4. Ideally, the data points should lie on the y = x
line (shown in solid line). The propane dehydrogenation
process in a RMBR is well described by the estimated
kinetic parameters since most of the data points of all
components except C2H4 are within the marginal error
lines of 20%. The C2H4 outlet composition is not accu-
rately predicted due to its very low absolute value com-
pared to the other components. It is more susceptible to
the errors during the plant data reconciliation phase. The
model adequacy also can be supported by the fairly ran-
dom and trendless distribution of the residual values
between plant data and predicted composition as shown
in Figure 5 (Montgomery 2008).

Table 3: Comparison of the predicted and the experimental activation energies.

Sources Activation Energies (kJ/mol)

Main Rx  Side Rx
st
nd Side Rx
eq. () eq. () eq. ()

Larsson, Henriksson, and Andersson () . ± . – –

Gascón et al. () . ± .  ± . –
Lobera et al. (b) . ± . . ± . . ± .
Li et al. () . ± . . ± . –
Present Study . . .

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
6 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor

55 5.0

CH4 predicted mole fraction, %

H2 predicted mole fraction, %

4.5
50

4.0
45
3.5

40
3.0
Mole fraction CH4
Mole fraction H2
35 2.5
35 40 45 50 55 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
H2 plant data mole fraction, % CH2 plant data mole fraction, %
(a) (b)
2.0 0.3
C2H6 predicted mole fraction, %

C2H4 predicted mole fraction, %

1.5 0.2

1.0 0.1

Mole fraction C2H6 Mole fraction C2H4

0.5 0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
C2H6 plant data mole fraction, % C2H4 plant data mole fraction, %
(c) (d)
50 20
C3H8 predicted mole fraction, %

C3H6 predicted mole fraction, %

45
15

40
10
35

5
30

Mole fraction C3H8 Mole fraction C3H6

25 0
25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20
C3H8 plant data mole fraction, % C3H6 plant data mole fraction, %
(e) (f)

Figure 4: Parity plot of the plant and model predicted mole fractions of (a) hydrogen; (b) methane; (c) ethane; (d) ethylene; (e) propane and
(f) propylene.

The resultant propane conversion and selectivity were the observed plant data. The root mean square deviations
calculated and compared with the plant data as shown for propane conversion and selectivity are 0.55 and 1.5
in Table 4. It can be seen that the predicted propane respectively, demonstrating the accuracy of the consid-
conversion and selectivity have good agreement with ered model and assumptions.

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor 7

0.1 0.006
Hydrogen Methane
0.08
0.004
Residual (data - predicted)

0.06

Residual (data - predicted)

0.002
0.04

0.02 2E- 18
2 3 4 5
0
35 40 45 50 55 –0.002
–0.02

–0.04 –0.004

–0.06
Mole fraction plant data, % –0.006
Mole fraction plant data, %
(a) (b)
0.003 0.00050
Ethane Ethylene
0.002
Residual (data - predicted)

Residual (data - predicted)

0.00025
0.001

0 0.00000
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
–0.001
–0.00025
–0.002

–0.003 –0.00050
Mole fraction plant data, % Mole fraction plant data, %
(c) (d)
0.05 0.03
Propane
0.04 Propylene
0.02
0.03
Residual (data - predicted)
Residual (data- predicted)

0.02
0.01
0.01
0 0
5 7 9 11 13 15
–0.01 30 35 40 45 50
–0.01
–0.02

–0.03 –0.02
–0.04

–0.05 –0.03
Mole fraction plant data, % Mole fraction plant data, %

(e) (f)

Figure 5: Residual curve for (a) hydrogen; (b) methane; (c) ethane; (d) ethylene; (e) propane and (f) propylene.

3.2 Simulation results H2/HC was ± 0.7. The propane conversion profiles at axial
and radial directions for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reactor
3.2.1 Propane conversion along radial and axial are shown in Figure 6.
directions Propane conversion increases significantly in the
radial direction because the gas flows radially. On the
The kinetic data obtained in the previous section was other hand, propane conversion slightly decreases along
adopted in the subsequent simulation studies. The the axial direction due the reduction in the catalyst activ-
WAIT of the radial moving bed reactor was ± 641°C and ity as it flows downward. The predicted conversion for 1st,

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
8 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor

Table 4: Comparison of simulated propane conversion and 45

selectivity with the industrial plant data. Simulated Propane
40
Conversion
35 Equilibrium Line

Propane Conversion, %
Plant data Model (125 kPa)
30
Propane conversion (%) Case  . . 25
Case  . .
20
Case  . .
Case  . . 15

Selectivity (%) Case  . . 10

Case  . . 5
Case  . .
0
Case  . . 500 550 600 650 700
Temperature,°C

2nd, 3rd, and 4th reactor were 15.032 %, 11.604 %, 7.696% Figure 7: Comparison of the equilibrium conversion with the
and 4.495% with the total conversion 33.8%. Deviations simulated conversion.
of the propane conversion for each reactor compared to
the plant data were 3.72%, 1.58%, 0.834% and 3.595%. Zangeneh et al. (2013). The catalyst activity decreased as
The decrease of propane conversion along the reactor it flowed through the reactors in series. Moreover, Figure 7
series in the present study can be analogous to the shows that the sensitivity of the equilibrium constant and
decrease of propane conversion with time as reported conversion to the temperature change is lower when its
by Kaneko et al. (2009), Sahebdelfar et al. (2012) and value is getting higher (Caspary et al. 1997).

18 15
z/L = 0 z/L = 0
15
Propane conversion, %mol

z/L = 1/3 z/L = 1/3

Propane conversion, %mol

12
z/L = 2/3 z/L = 2/3
12
z/L = 1 9 z/L = 1
9
6
6

3
3

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1) Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1)
(a) (b)
10 8
z/L = 0 z/L = 0
Propane conversion, %mol
Propane conversion, %mol

8 z/L = 1/3 z/L = 1/3

6
z/L = 2/3 z/L = 2/3
6 z/L = 1
z/L = 1
4
4

2
2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1) Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1)
(c) (d)
Figure 6: Propane conversion profile along the radial and axial directions for (a) 1st reactor; (b) 2nd reactor; (c) 3rd reactor and (d) 4th reactor.

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor 9

3.2.2 Temperature profile along radial and axial decay as the catalyst flows along this direction.
directions Comparing to the plant data, the deviations of the pre-
dicted outlet temperature from the plant data of the 1st,
In the experimental study of propane dehydrogenation, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reactors are 3.41%, 4.44%, 3.87% and
the reactors were usually assumed to be an isothermal 2.08% respectively.
reactor under an average temperature (Praserthdam,
Grisdanurak, and Yuangsawatdikul 2000; Lobera et al.
2008b; Bijani and Sahebdelfar 2008; Farjoo et al. 2011). 3.2.3 Coke formation along radial and axial direction
The temperature gradient in both radial and axial direc-
tions can be obtained using process model considering Figure 9 shows the coke content of the catalyst at the
both of these directions. Figure 8 shows the temperature reactor in radial and axial directions. In the radial direc-
profile at different bed depth and radial distances. The tion, coke content at the inner radius is higher than the
trend of the temperature profiles in radial and axial direc- outer radius due to its higher temperature that promotes
tions are similar with the temperature profile of the coke formation through cracking. The endothermic reac-
endothermic isobutane dehydrogenation in a RMBR as tion occurred radially has caused the temperature drop at
predicted by Sahebdelfar et al. (2011). The temperature the outer radius. Similarly, the coke content increases
profile in radial direction declines along the flow direc- when the catalyst flows from the top to bottom of the
tion due to the highly endothermic reaction. The tem- reactor. More coke is deposited on the catalyst as it
perature difference between inner wall and outer wall moves downward because of the longer catalyst resi-
drops along the axial direction because of the catalyst dence time. The longer catalyst residence time also has

630 660

640
Reactor temperature, °C

Reactor temperature, °C

610
620

z/L = 0 600 z/L = 0

590 z/L = 1/3 z/L = 1/3
z/L = 2/3 580 z/L = 2/3
z/L = 1 z/L = 1

570 560
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1) Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1)
(a) (b)
650 650

640
Reactor temperature, °C

Reactor temperature, °C

640

630
630
z/L = 0
620 z/L = 0
z/L = 1/3
z/L = 1/3
z/L = 2/3 620 z/L = 2/3
610
z/L = 1 z/L = 1

600 610
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1) Radial Position, (r-R1)/(R2-R1)
(c) (d)

Figure 8. Reactor temperature profile along the radial and axial directions of (a) 1st reactor; (b) 2nd reactor; (c) 3rd reactor
and (d) 4th reactor.

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
10 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor

2 3.2
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =0 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 0
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3 2.8
1.5 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =1
Coke Content, wt%

Coke Content, wt%

(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1
2.4
1

0.5
1.6

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Position, z/L Axial Position, z/L
(a) (b)
3.8 4.4
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =0 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) =0
3.6 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3 4.2 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3
3.4 Coke Content, wt% (r-R1)/(R2-R1) =1
Coke Content, wt%

(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =1 4 Plant data

3.2
3.8
3
3.6
2.8
3.4
2.6

2.4 3.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Position, z/L Axial Position, z/L
(c) (d)
Figure 9: Coke content on the catalyst active site along the radial and axial directions of (a) 1st reactor; (b) 2nd reactor; (c) 3rd reactor
and (d) 4th reactor.

caused an increase in coke content along the reactor constants were optimised before it was used to simulate
series. the propane conversion, reactor outlet temperature, coke
The coke contents at the outlet of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th formation and the corresponding catalyst activity in the
reactor are found to be 1.32%, 2.49%, 3.33% and 3.98% radial and axial directions of all reactors.
respectively. The coke content at the outlet of the last It was found that the predicted activation energies of
reactor well matches with coke content measured from the propane dehydrogenation (31.978 kJ/mol), propane
the plant. The corresponding catalyst activity profiles are cracking (141.94 kJ/mol) and ethylene hydrogenation
shown in Figure 10. Lower catalyst activity is attributed to (149.41 kJ/mol) were in reasonable agreement with the
the higher coke content. The catalyst activities at the experimental values reported in the literature. The model
reactor outlets of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reactor are validity check using the parity plot and residual analysis
0.758, 0.543, 0.39 and 0.267 respectively. of the component compositions concluded the adequacy
of the model.
The model developed has accurately predicted the
4 Conclusion reaction temperature profile, conversion profile and cat-
alyst coke content. The corresponding catalyst activity
The present study aimed to develop and validate a first after the 4th reactor in the series was 0.267. The model
principal model for propane dehydrogenation catalysed can be further used to optimise the process for obtaining
by platinum on alumina in a RMBR. The reaction kinetic higher production yield.

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor 11

1 0.8

0.95 0.75

0.9 0.7

Catalyst Activity
Catalyst Activity

0.85 0.65

0.8 0.6

0.75 0.55
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =0 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 0
0.7 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3 0.5 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3
0.65 0.45
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) =1 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1
0.6 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Position, z/L Axial Position, z/L

(a) (b)
0.55 0.4

0.5
0.35
Catalyst Activity

Catalyst Activity

0.45
0.3
0.4
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 0 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) =0
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1/3
0.25
0.35 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 2/3
(r-R1)/(R2-R1) = 1 (r-R1)/(R2-R1) =1
0.3 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Position, z/L Axial Position, z/L
(c) (d)
Figure 10: Catalyst activity along the radial and axial directions of (a) 1st reactor; (b) 2nd reactor; (c) 3rd reactor and (d) 4th reactor.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowl- R1 Bed inner radius, m

edge MOE for the financial support under Knowledge R2 Bed outer radius, m
rn′ Rate of disappearance of reactant in reaction n, kmol/
Transfer Program project, RDU 121001.
(kg. hr)
TRef Reference temperature, K
W Weight of catalyst, kg
ΔHRx, n, T
List of Symbols Δr
Heat of reaction for reaction n at certain temperature (T )
Elemental ring thickness
Δz Elemental height thickness
CpA Heat capacity of componentA
ρb Bulk density of catalyst, kg/m3
FA Molar flow rate of component A, kmol/hr
h height of catalyst bed, m
i Number of elements in the axial
j Number of elements in the radial References
Keq Reaction equilibrium constant for propane dehydro-
genation, kPa 1. Agarwal, H., Stenger, H.G., 2007. Development of a Predictive
k1 Rate constant for forward reaction, kmol/(kg.hr) Kinetic Model for Homogeneous Hg Oxidation Data. Math.
k−1 Rate constant for backward reaction, kmol/(kg.hr) Comput. Model. 45, 109–125.
k2 Rate constant for propane cracking, kmol/(kg.hr) 2. Bijani, P.M., Sahebdelfar, S., 2008. Modeling of a Radial-Flow
k3 Rate constant for ethylene hydrogenolysis, kmol/(kg.hr) Moving-Bed Reactor for Dehydrogenation of Isobutane. Kinet.
PA Partial pressure of component A, kPaG Catal. 49(4), 599–605.

Brought to you by | Monash University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
12 S. Y. Chin et al.: Simulation Study of an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor
3. Caspary, K.J., Gehrke, H., Adrian, M.H., Schwefer, M., 2008.
Dehydrogenation of Alkanes. In: Gerhard Ertl, Helmut
Knozinger, Ferdi Schuth, Jens Weitkamp, editors. Handbook of
Heterogeneous Catalysis by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
KGaA, German, p. 3207.
4. Chin, S.Y., Radzi, S.N.R., Maharon, I.H., Shafawi, M.A., 2011.
Kinetic Model and Simulation Analysis for Propane
Dehydrogenation in an Industrial Moving Bed Reactor. World
Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 52, 183–189.
5. Dooho, C., 2013. The effect of shale gas revolution on oil
industry, 1–10.
6. Farjoo, A., Khorasheh, F., Niknaddaf, S., Soltani, M., 2011.
Kinetic Modeling of Side Reactions in Propane Dehydrogenation
over Pt-Sn/γ – Al2O3 Catalyst. Sci. Iran. 18(3), 458–464.
7. Farsi, M., Jahanmiri, A., Rahimpour, M.R., 2013. Optimal
Operating Conditions of Radial Flow Moving-Bed Reactors for
Isobutane Dehydrogenation. J. Energy Chem. 22, 633–638.
8. Gascón, J., Téllez, C., Herguido, J., Menéndez, M., 2003.
Propane Dehydrogenation over a Cr2O3/Al2O3 Catalyst:
Transient Kinetic Modeling of Propene and Coke Formation.
Appl. Catal. A Gen. 248, 105–116.
9. Gyngazova, M.S., Kravtsov, A. V., Ivanchina, E.D., Korolenko,
M. V., Chekantsev, N. V., 2011. Reactor Modeling and
Simulation of Moving-Bed Catalytic Reforming Process. Chem.
Eng. J. 176–177, 134–143.
10. Kaneko, S., Arakawa, T., Ohshima, M., Kurokawa, H., Miura,
H., 2009. Dehydrogenation of Propane Combined with
Selective Hydrogen Combustion over Pt-Sn Bimetallic
Catalysts. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 356, 80–87.
11. Larsson, M., Henriksson, N., Andersson, B., 1998.
Investigation of the Kinetics of a Deactivating System by
Transient Experiments. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 166, 9–19.
12. Li, Q., Sui, Z., Zhou, X., Chen, D., 2011. Kinetics of Propane
Dehydrogenation over Pt–Sn/Al2O3 Catalyst. Appl. Catal.
A Gen. 398, 18–26.
13. Lobera, M.P., Tellez, C., Herguido, J., Menendez, M., 2008a.
Propane Dehydrogenation over Pt-Sn-K/γ-Al2O3 Catalyst in a Two-
Zone Fluidized Bed Reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 9314–9320.
Brought to you by | Monash University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 11/21/15 8:49 AM
14. Lobera, M.P., Téllez, C., Herguido, J.,Menéndez, M., 2008b.
Transient Kinetic Modelling of Propane Dehydrogenation
over a Pt–Sn–K/Al2O3 Catalyst. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 349,
156–164.
15. Montgomery, D.C., 2008. Design and Analysis of Experiments,
7th ed., Wiley, New York.
16. Nexant, 2012. Evolving Propylene Sources, Solution to Supply
Shotages? 31.
17. Praserthdam, P., Grisdanurak, N., Yuangsawatdikul, W., 2000.
Coke Formation over Pt–Sn-K/Al2O3 in C3, C5–C8 Alkane
Dehydrogenation. Chem. Eng. J. 77, 215–219.
18. Sahebdelfar, S., Bijani, P.M., Saeedizad, M., Zangeneh, F.T.,
Ganji, K., 2011. Modeling of Adiabatic Moving-Bed Reactor for
Dehydrogenation of Isobutane to Isobutene. Appl. Catal. A
Gen. 395, 107–113.
19. Sahebdelfar, S., Ravanchi, M.T., Tahriri Zangeneh, F.,
Mehrazma, S., Rajabi, S., 2012. Kinetic Study of Propane
Dehydrogenation and Side Reactions over Pt–Sn/Al2O3
Catalyst. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 90, 1090–1097.
20. Sahoo, S.K., Rao, P.V., Rajeshwer, D., Krishnamurthy, K.R.,
Singh, I.D., 2003. Structural Characterization of Coke Deposits
on Industrial Spent Paraffin Dehydrogenation Catalysts. Appl.
Catal. A Gen. 244, 311–321.
21. Sanfilippo, D., Miracca, I., 2006. Dehydrogenation of Paraffins:
Synergies Between Catalyst Design and Reactor Engineering.
Catal. Today 111, 133–139.
22. Wang, G., Xu, C., Gao, J., 2008. Study of Cracking FCC
Naphtha in a Secondary Riser of the FCC Unit for
Maximum Propylene Production. Fuel Process. Technol. 89,
864–873.
23. Yaws, C.L., 1999. Chemical Properties Handbook: Physical,
Thermodynamic Environ- mental, Transport, Safety and Health
Related Properties for Organic and Inorganic Chemicals,
McGraw-Hill Handbooks, New York.
24. Zangeneh, F.T., Taeb, A., Gholivand, K., Sahebdelfar, S., 2013.
Kinetic Study of Propane Dehydrogenation and Catalyst
Deactivation over Pt-Sn/Al2O3 Catalyst. J. Energy Chem. 22(5),
726–732.