화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol.29, No.11, 1531-1540, November, 2012
DOI10.1007/s11814-012-0030-3  Export Citation
Computational fluid dynamics modeling of hydrogen production in an autothermal reactor: Effect of different thermal conditions
Sayed Reza Shabanian, Masoud Rahimi†, Amin Amiri1, Shahram Sharifnia2, and Ammar Abdulaziz Alsairafi3
  • CFD Research Center, Chemical Engineering Department, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 1Department of Chemical Engineering, Kermanshah University of Technology, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 2Catalyst Research Center, Chemical Engineering Department, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 3Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University, Kuwait
E-mail:
A numerical model was developed and validated to simulate and improve the reforming efficiency of methane to syngas (CO+H2) in an autothermal reactor. This work was undertaken in a 0.8 cm diameter and 30 cm length quartz tubular reactor. The exhaust gas from combustion at the bottom of reactor was passed over a Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst bed. The Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC) model for turbulence-chemistry interaction in combination with a modified standard k-ε model for turbulence and a reaction mechanism with 23 species and 39 elementary reactions were considered in the combustion model. The pre-exponential factors and activation energy values for the catalyst (Ru) were obtained by using the experimental results. The percentage of difference between the predicted and measured mole fractions of the major species in the exhaust gas from combustion and catalyst bed zones was less than 5.02% and 7.73%, respectively. In addition, the results showed that the reforming efficiency, based on hydrogen yield, was increased with increase in catalyst bed’s thermal conductivity. Moreover, an enhancement of 4.34% in the reforming efficiency was obtained with increase in the catalyst bed wall heat flux from 0.5 to 2.0 kW/m2.
Keywords:CFD;Combustion;Hydrogen Production;Reforming Efficiency;Syngas
  1. Gosiewski K, Chem. Eng. Process., 39(5), 459 (2000)
  2. Christensen TS, Primdahl II, Hydrocarb. Process., 73(3), 39 (1994)
  3. Ko KD, Lee JK, Park D, Shin SH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 12(4), 478 (1995)
  4. Kim KH, Lee SY, Nam SW, Lim TH, Hong SA, Yoon KJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 23(1), 17 (2006)
  5. Lim MS, Hong MS, Chun YN, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(4), 1022 (2009)
  6. Koo K, Yoon J, Lee C, Joo H, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 25(5), 1054 (2008)
  7. Aasberg-Petersen K, Christensen TS, Nielsen CS, Dybkjaer I, Fuel Process. Technol., 83, 253
  8. Simeone M, Salemme L, Scognamiglio D, Allouis C, Volpicelli G, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy., 33, 1252 (2008)
  9. Rabe S, Truong TB, Vogel F, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 292, 177 (2005)
  10. Dantas SC, Escritori JC, Soares RR, Hori CE, Chem. Eng. J., 156(2), 380 (2010)
  11. Dias JAC, Assaf JM, J. Power Sources, 130(1-2), 106 (2004)
  12. Park SH, Chun BH, Kim SH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 28(2), 402 (2011)
  13. Lee HJ, Lim YS, Park NC, Kim YC, Chem. Eng. J., 146(2), 295 (2009)
  14. Ma L, Trimm DL, Jiang C, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 138(2), 275 (1996)
  15. Biesheuvel PM, Kramer GJ, AIChE J., 49(7), 1827 (2003)
  16. Chan SH, Hoang DL, Ding OL, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 48(19-20), 4205 (2005)
  17. Lin ST, Chen YH, Yu CC, Liu YC, Lee CH, J. Power Sources, 148, 43 (2005)
  18. Avci AK, Trimm DL, Onsan ZI, Chem. Eng. Sci., 56(2), 641 (2001)
  19. Cipiti F, Pino L, Vita A, Lagana M, Recupero V, Int. J. Hydrog.Energy., 33, 3197 (2008)
  20. Behroozsarand A, Ebrahimi H, Zamaniyan A, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48(16), 7529 (2009)
  21. Shi L, Bayless DJ, Prudich ME, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy., 34, 7666 (2009)
  22. Zhou XW, Chen CX, Wang FC, Chem. Eng. Process., 49(1), 59 (2010)
  23. Yu YH, Chem. Eng. Technol., 25(3), 307 (2002)
  24. Zahedinezhad M, Rowshanzamir S, Eikani MH, Int. J. Hydrog.Energy., 34, 1292 (2009)
  25. KARIM GA, HANAFI AS, ZHOU G, J. Energy Resour. Technol.-Trans. ASME, 115(4), 301 (1993)
  26. Xu J, Froment G, AIChE J., 35, 88 (1989)
  27. Amirshaghaghi H, Zamaniyan A, Ebrahimi H, Zarkesh M, Appl. Math. Model., 34, 2312 (2010)
  28. Fluent 6.2.16: Fluent Inc., Lebanon (2001)
  29. Dally BB, Fletcher DF, Masri AR, Combust. Theory Model., 2, 193 (1998)
  30. Glarborg P, Miller JA, Kee RJ, Combust. Flame., 65, 177 (1986)
  31. Bilger RW, Stamer SH, Kee RJ, Combust. Flame., 80, 135 (1990)
  32. Chen GB, Chen CP, Wu CY, Chao YC, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 332(1), 89 (2007)