Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Design of reactor using traditional performance equations is inadequate as it does not take into account non-ideality in the
reactors. Quantification of non-ideality is done using Residence Time Distribution studies (RTD). But RTD studies can be carried
out on already existing reactor. Therefore this technique will not help in incorporating non-ideality in the design stage. Another
method is to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) packages and predict RTD. The methods used to predict reactor
performance using RTD involves modeling, fitting the RTD data to the model to determine the model parameters such as number
of tanks in tanks in series model or dispersion number in axial dispersion model. These models are inadequate as the RTD may
not be a proper fit. After the model fit, using the model parameter to determine the performance of the reactor is cumbersome and
in some cases it is not possible. There are several models that predict reactor performance which use Convection Diffusion
Reaction (CDR) equations and these methods are computationally intensive. Simpler models that are less computationally
intensive but adequate enough to predict reactor performance are to be developed. In the present paper a model is developed
which makes use of only velocity profile to predict homogeneous reactor performance. Algorithm of the model is then applied to
Laminar Flow Tubular Reactor (LFTR). Testing of the model is done by comparing the results of the model with those predicted
by well established analytical methods for LFTR. The results of the model and those of LFTR agree well.
Keywords: Laminar Flow, velocity profile, reactor, conversion, grid cell, CSTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------1. INTRODUCTION
Reactor modeling that incorporates non-ideality at the
design stage requires better understanding of mixing that
occurs in the reactor. In the classical reactor design, only the
mass conservation principle is used without taking into
account how exactly reaction takes place in the reactor.
Mass conservation principle along with certain assumptions
is used to develop design procedures. Such reactors are
called ideal reactors. Design equations developed are called
performance equations. Though mixing contributes to the
reaction, it does not play any role in the performance
equations. The ideality and its validity play an important
role in the accuracy of performance prediction of the
reactors using these equations. The simplest way of
quantifying mixing adequate enough to incorporate kinetics
in the evaluation of reactor is conventionally carried by
using Residence Time Distribution (RTD) studies [1].
Unfortunately, RTD is not available at the design stage.
RTD study is conducted on the existing reactors. There is no
way RTD can be used at the design stage except the cases
where RTD can be simulated using appropriate model.
However there are no generic RTD models applicable to all
reactors. Low dimensional mixing models such as axial
dispersion recycle and tanks in series models are simple to
use. These models are single parameter models [2] and
cannot be fitted to all reactors. Whenever single parameter
models are inadequate, multi-parameter models may be used
[1]. Determination of model parameters can pose
difficulties. Another approach is to use of Computational
Fluid Dynamics to analyze mixing effect on reactor
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
309
2.2 Assumptions
The flow in the reactor is laminar.
1.
The velocity profile is parabolic throughout the
reactor. The end effects are neglected.
2.
The diffusion effects are negligible.
3.
The physical properties of reaction mixture are
constant i.e., do not vary with composition.
4.
The reaction is of constant volume.
5.
The condition within the reactor is isothermal.
2.
ri R (2i 1)r
R
where r
, i 1,2,3..., q
2q
(1)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
310
The measurement of
10.
11.
12.
Ai
4
ri r
r
13.
14.
(2)
Vi Ai L / p
CA
(3)
r 2
v zi 2v z 1 i
R
(4)
Qi v zi Ai
8.
9.
(5)
Vi
qi
i ( rAi )
C A0i
value of ( rAi )
The
Ai
Qi
(8)
R 2 vz
(6)
X Ai
C
one sec tor
(7)
is to be evaluated at the
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
vA
vB
C A0
3
0.0008 m / s
9.
C B 0
70 mol / m3
10.
7.
8.
0.0008 m / s
70 mol / m3
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
311
Variable
Slice 1 Slice 2
Outer Annular
Ring in one
sector
ri
0.375
0.125
0.1472
0.04908
1.782 x 10-3
3.819 x 10-3
0.368
0.1227
2.62 x 10-4
38.19 x 10-4
1402.5
654.59
Inner Circle in
one sector
0.7277
0.5474
0.6293
0.4725
C Ai
9.53
4.313
12.971
6.8418
Ai
i
CA
XA
X AI
Qi
1.1318 x 10-3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
X Ai
C
Q
1
Conversion
Ai
vz
Vi
qz
i
Slice 2
1.2821 x 10-3
0.4498 x 10-3
5.3655
0.84669
0.945
20
40
Number of sectors
60
Convesrion
Slice No.
0.8664
0.8662
0.866
0.8658
0.8656
0.8654
0.8652
0.865
0.8648
200
400
Number of circles
Chart-2: Conversion vs. number of circles
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
312
Conversion
0.905
0.9
0.895
0.89
0.885
0.88
0.875
0.87
0.865
0.86
0.06
CA0 = 10
0.05
log(Number of slices)
Chart-3: Conversion vs. log (number of slices).
Difference
0.04
0.02
0.01
(9)
-0.001
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
k X 105
Chart-5: Variation of difference in conversion with k
A peculiar trend was observed when the difference between
and ideal and model conversions were plotted against
Damkohler number and the plot is given in Chart-6. The
maximum difference occurred for all concentrations at one
single value of Damkohler number less than 2. Theoretical
basis for difference between model conversion and ideal
conversion (X) occurring at a single NDa has also been
investigated. It was found that theoretical basis also gives
maximum at a single value of NDa.
0.06
CA0 = 10
CA0 =20
CA0 = 30
CA0 = 50
0.05
Model Conversion
Laminar Conversion
5E-18
0.04
X
Conversion
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
CA0 = 50
0.03
kC t
CA
2
1 kC A0 t 1 A0 ln1
C A0
2
kC A0 t
CA0 = 20
CA0 = 30
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.001
0.00
0.002
k
Chart- 4: Comparison of model and laminar conversion
From Chart-4, it is clear that model conversion completely
agree with laminar flow conversion. This validates the
model for bimolecular reaction with equimolar feed. The
model and laminar conversions were determined for various
10
20 N 30
40
50
Da
Chart-6: Difference between model and ideal conversion
vs. NDa.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
313
X X A.Ideal X A.Model
(10)
N Da
2
N Da 1 Da ln1
1 N Da
2
N
Da
[4]
(11)
[3]
[5]
(12)
[6]
[7]
d (X )
to zero to get
dN Da
N Da
1
2
0
1
N Da ln1
1 N Da
2 N Da
N Da
[8]
[9]
[10]
6. CONCLUSIONS
A model was developed to determine the performance of
Laminar Flow Tubular Reactor and computer program was
written and tested. The results of the model were compared
to those obtained by various well established analytical
methods. In all the methods of testing and validation used,
the results agree well.
This establishes that the velocity profile can be successfully
used to predict the performance of LFTR with excellent
accuracy. Whenever the reaction is such that the diffusion
effects are negligible, this model may be used. Testing in
this paper is carried out for simple kinetics (bimolecular
reaction with equimolar feed) for which analytical solution
for testing is available in the literature. Analytical testing of
the model cannot be done for bimolecular reaction with nonequimolar feed. The model is to be further tested and
validated for general kinetics.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
BIOGRAPHIES
Vinod Kallur obtained his BE and
M.Tech in Chemical Engineering from
KREC (NITK) Surathkal, India. He has 20
years of teaching experience. His interests
include
reaction
engineering,
computational chemical engineering and
modeling. Presently he is Associate
Professor in Chemical Engineering Department of R V
College of Engineering, Bangalore, India.
Dr M.A.Lourdu Antony Raj obtained
his BE in Chemical Engineering from
Annamalai University, India in 1981 and
PhD from Bangalore University. His
area of research includes reaction
engineering, transfer operations and
modeling. He served as Head, Chemical
Engineering Department at R V College of Engineering,
Bangalore, India during 2004-2010. Presently he is Dean,
Student affairs. He has 31 years of teaching and 16 years of
research experience. He has more than 20 national and
international publications and 18 national and international
conference publications.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 09 | Sep-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org
314