Professional Documents
Culture Documents
\
|
AL
A
v L
AG
iG L
AG
eAG L
C
H
p
a K
dz
dC
u
dz
C d
D c c c c
where and
L
are the void fraction of packing and liquid hold-up ([m
3
liquid/m
3
reactor]),
respectively. ( -
L
) is equal to the gas hold-up,
G
,
in [m
3
gas/m
3
reactor]. u
iG
is the interstitial
velocity of gas in [m reactor/s] and hence the expression ( -
L
)*u
iG
is equal to u
sG
, the
superficial gas velocity in [m
3
gas/m
2
reactor, s]. If u
sG
is not constant, it should be included in
the differential. a
v
\
|
+
s
As AL v Al AL
A
v L
AL
iL L
AL
eAL L
C C a k C
H
p
a K
dz
dC
u
dz
C d
D c c
MB for component B in liquid phase:
0 ) (
' '
2
2
=
s
Bs BL v Bl
BL
iL L
BL
eBL L
C C a k
dz
dC
u
dz
C d
D c c
where
L
*u
iL
is the same as the superficial liquid velocity, u
sL
, in [m
3
liquid/m
2
reactor, s]. k
l
is
the mass transfer coefficient between liquid and catalyst surface in [m
3
liquid/m
2
interface, s],
and a
v
MB for component B inside catalyst pellet, concentration gradients accounted for:
0 ) (
1
1
2
2
=
=
NR
j
j Bj s
Bs
effB
r
d
dC
d
d
D o
where D
eff
is the effective diffusivity coefficient inside the catalyst pellet in [m
2
/s],
s
is the
catalyst density in [kg cat./m
3
particle], NR is the number of reactions,
Aj
is the stoichiometric
coefficient of component A in the j
th
reaction, and r
j
is the reaction rate for reaction j. The
sum of
Aj
*r
j
is negative for a component that is consumed. If mass transfer limitation inside
of the pellet can be neglected, for instance when the particle diameter is very small which
often is the case in slurry reactors, the last MB may be simplified with:
MB for component A at catalyst surface, no concentration gradients:
0 ) 1 ( ) (
1
' '
= +
=
j
NR
j
Aj s
s
As AL v Al
r C C a k o c
MB for component B at catalyst surface, no concentration gradients:
0 ) 1 ( ) (
1
' '
= +
=
j
NR
j
Bj s
s
Bs BL v Bl
r C C a k o c
36
The mass balances above are typical for any multiphase system. Simplifications are often
made such as assuming plug-flow of the gas. In slurry reactor models, in which the catalyst
particles are entrained with the liquid, the slurry phase is often modeled as a CSTR, while in
trickle beds the liquid phase often is treated as a plug flow. According to Shah and Sharma
[1987], in general, the number of equations that must be set up to solve a multi-phase system
equals the sum of all component balances for each phase plus the number of overall material
balances.
EB for gas phase:
0 ) ( 4 ) ( ) ( ) (
'
2
2
= +
g w gw
t
g
l g v a pg g iG L ag L
T T a
d
U
T T a h
dz
dT
c u
dz
T d
c c c c
where
ag
is the axial conductivity in the gas phase in [W/m gas, K], h
a
the heat transfer
coefficient from bulk gas to bulk liquid in [W/m
2
interface, K], U
g
is an overall heat transfer
coefficient for heat transfer between gas and tube wall in [W/m
2
gas-wall interface, K] and
a
gw
is the gas-wall interfacial area per inner tube wall area.
EB for liquid phase:
0 ) ( 4 ) ( ) (
' ' '
2
2
= + +
l w lw
t
l s
s l v l l g v a pL L iL L al L
T T a
d
U
T T a h T T a h
dz
dT
c u
dz
T d
c c
where
al
is the axial conductivity in the liquid phase in [W/m liquid, K], h
l
the heat transfer
coefficient between liquid and catalyst surface in [W/m
2
interface, K], U
l
is an overall heat
transfer coefficient for heat transfer between liquid and tube wall in [W/m
2
liquid-wall
interface, K] and a
lw
is the liquid-wall interfacial area per inner tube wall area.
EB in particle, intraparticle temperature gradients accounted for:
0 ) (
1
2
2
= A
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
j
NR
j
j s
s e
r H
d
dT
d
d
While slurry reactors are often considered as isothermal, trickle-beds are not. Therefore it is
necessary to set up energy balances for the different phases. However, according to Jakobsen
[2003], the catalyst particles can often be considered as isothermal, and hence the last EB
could be simplified with:
EB at particle surface, no intraparticle temperature gradients:
0 ) ( ) 1 ( ) (
1
' '
= A +
=
j
NR
j
j s
s
s l v l
r H T T a h c
37
However, according to Gianetto and Silveston [1986], commercial trickle-bed reactors are
normally considered as adiabatic, since the heat losses from the reactor are negligible
compared to the heat generated by the reaction, and heat conduction is neglected.
Furthermore, according to Shah [1979] and Gianetto and Silveston [1986], all phases at any
given axial position in the reactor is often assumed to have the same temperature. With these
assumptions, the EB for a trickle bed could be simplified with the following expression:
EB for adiabatic trickle-bed with temperature equality at any z-point in the reactor:
0 ) ( ) 1 ( ) ) ( (
1
= A +
=
j
NR
j
j s pg g iG L pL L iL L
r H
dz
dT
c u c u c c c c
Momentum equation
In the case of trickle beds, a momentum equation has to be set up. The standard Ergun
equation was used by Wang et al. [2003] in the case of a Fischer-Tropsch reactor, in which
the liquid phase was assumed just to be a thin film surrounding the catalyst particles.
Froment and Bischoff [1990] give some alternative expressions for calculation of the pressure
drop in trickle beds, based on pressure drops measured for a certain bed with either liquid,
L
,
and gas,
G
, flow only. The equation below is one example:
666 . 0 log
416 . 0
log
2
2
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
+
G
L
G L
o
o
o o
o
where
2
is the two-phase frictional pressure drop. The measured pressure drop, dP
tot
/dz, is
related to
2
according to:
L L
tot
g
dz
dP
c o =
2
g is the acceleration of gravity in [m/s
2
]. The equations above are only valid if u
sG
= u
sL
, since
they are based on the assumption that the gas and liquid are quasi-homogeneous. See Froment
and Bischoff [1990] for further examples. Froment and Bischoff [1990] also discussed that in
trickle-bed operation, the liquid and gas flow rates are much lower than in for instance packed
absorbers, and hence single-flow pressure drop equations could be used as a first
approximation, with the void fraction reduced to account for the liquid hold-up.
38
3. Special issues in modeling of trickle-bed reactors
3.1 Introduction
What make trickle-beds a bit more complicated to model than other multi-phase reactors, are
the facts that the catalyst is often not completely wetted, insufficient liquid hold-up,
backmixing etc. [Shah and Sharma, 1987]. Gianetto and Silveston [1986] summarized the
main differences between transport and reaction in porous catalysts in multi-phase reactors
and conventional gas-solid reactors with the following points:
- The catalyst pores in multiphase reactors are often filled with liquid, and the diffusion in
liquids is approximately 4 orders of magnitudes lower than that in gases. Concentration of
solutes in most cases will be lower than the concentrations of the gas species. The low
concentrations and the slow diffusion result in a low catalyst surface utilization, which in turn
means that the overall rates are much slower than if the reaction could be performed in gas-
phase.
- When the pores are filled, the heat conductivity is about one order of magnitude higher than
for gas-filled pores. This means that the catalyst particles can be assumed isothermal at each
axial point in the reactor, provided the wetting of the catalyst is sufficient.
- In a multiphase system, the catalyst particle may be exposed to non-symmetrical surface
conditions. Part of the catalyst surface may be in contact with the flowing liquid, another part
in contact with a stagnant liquid, and the rest of the particle might be unwetted. This means
that the solute concentration will vary significantly over the external catalyst surface. When
the wetting is poor, the exothermic reactions can lead to evaporation of the liquid in some
pores. Those pores are hence dried out and completely filled with gas. In these cases, complex
temperature gradients will be present inside of the catalyst.
A poor wetting is also believed to be the major cause of poor effectiveness. The incomplete
wetting leads to non-symmetrical concentration gradients in the catalyst pores and
complicates the prediction of reaction rates and the analysis of kinetic data from trickle-beds.
In order to be able to evaluate the true rate constant, k, from laboratory experiments, it is
necessary to be able to correlate the observed rate constant, k
obs
, to the true one.
In Table 1, the advantages and disadvantages with trickle-beds as summarized by Shah [1979]
are given.
39
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages with trickle-beds [Shah, 1979].
3.2 Catalyst wetting and relating k
app
to k
Assuming first order kinetics of the reaction inside a trickle-bed, the apparent rate constant,
k
app
, will for instance depend on the thickness of the liquid film surrounding the catalyst
pellets, which in turn is dependent on the liquid flow rate, and on the diffusion resistance
inside the pellets. The k
app
will of course be different from (lower than) the true rate constant,
k, as long as the reaction is limited by mass transfer. If the reaction is not truly first order,
different k
app
values will be obtained at different conversions.
Bondi [1971], a reference in Froment and Bischoff [1990], derived the following relation for
trickle-beds:
b
L app
L
A
k k ) / (
1 1
'
O
+ =
|
o
c ) (
2
2 3
'
p v
L
L p
L
p L
L
d a
g d L d
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
=
where L is the volumetric liquid flow rate in [m
3
liquid/s], the cross sectional reactor area
[m
2
reactor],
L
the liquid viscosity in [kg/m, s] and a
v
is the external particle surface area per
unit of reactor volume in [m
2
particle/m
3
reactor]. c, , and are constants (see Froment and
Bischoff [1990]). Although not discussed by Froment and Bischoff [1990], this dynamic hold-
up could probably find use in a so-called two-zone model, in which the liquid is looked upon
as a flowing fraction and a stagnant fraction, as described below in Backmixing.
Henry and Gilbert, a reference in Shah [1979], claimed that a certain minimum liquid hold-up
is required for 100 % catalyst utilization, as illustrated in Figure 4.
42
Figure 4. Effect of fluid dynamics on hold-up [Shah, 1979].
The liquid hold-up was claimed to depend on (Fr
L
/Re
L
)
1/3
, where Fr
L
= u
sL
/
L
2
d
p
g and Re
L
=
u
sL
d
p
/
L
.
There are some correlations that might be used to estimate interfacial areas in the trickle-bed.
One example is the following expression, originally developed for a countercurrent packed
column, for
L
L/ = 1.5 kg/m
2
, s:
18 . 0
, 135 . 0 04 . 0
'
Re 05 . 1
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L
c L
L
v
v
We
a
a
o
o
where We =
L
L
2
d
p
/
2
L
, and
L,c
is the critical surface tension above which the packing
cannot be wetted.
Respecting the mass transfer between gas and liquid in trickle-beds, there are some specific
results for cocurrent operation available in literature. For low liquid and gas flows,
Charpentier [1977] (a reference in Froment and Bischoff [1990]) developed the following
correlation for the liquid side mass transfer:
9
'
10 4 . 2
0011 . 0
=
AL
L v L
D
E a k [s
-1
]
where D
AL
is the diffusivity in liquid in [m
2
/s], assuming that the liquid viscosity is not too far
from that of water, and E
L
= (P
tot
/z)*u
sL
in [W/m
3
]. Reiss, a reference in Shah [1979],
found a correlation for the liquid side mass transfer at higher gas and liquid rates (pulsing or
spray flow):
5 . 0 '
173 . 0
L v L
E a k =
Figure 5 illustrates the above discussion.
43
Figure 5. Correlation between liquid side mass transfer coefficient k
L
a
L
values for cocurrent downflow in packed
beds. a
L
in the figure is the gas-liquid interfacial area, i.e. a
v
. U
0L
in the figure is the superficial liquid velocity,
i.e. u
sL
[Shah, 1979].
The gas-side mass transfer, k
G
a
v
\
|
+ + =
where k
e
is the effective conductivity of the bed, k
l
and k
g
the liquid and gas conductivities.
Re
G
and Re
L
are the gas and liquid Reynolds numbers based on superficial velocities and tube
diameter. Pr
G
and Pr
L
are the gas and liquid Prandtl numbers. The overall heat-transfer
coefficient was related to the effective conductivity as:
Z
c u c u r
k
r
U
pG sG pL sL t
e
t
) ( 183 . 0
892 . 2
-
+
+ = [cal h
-1
cm
-2
K
-1
]
where r
t
is the tube radius in [cm] and u
sL
and u
sG
are in [g/h, cm
2
]. c
pG
*
is the specific heat of
saturated air in [cal/g, K]. Z is the axial distance from the inlet in [cm]. These relations were
found for an air-water cocurrent downward system with packing of spheres with sizes
between 38 mm and 65 mm. The radial heat transfer coefficients were found to be much
larger than those observed for single phase liquid flow. The effect of the gas on the heat
transfer was mainly that it increased the velocity of the liquid phase. The radial velocity in the
liquid was larger in two-phase flow.
45
3.5 Effectiveness factor
The use of effectiveness factors instead of solving the particle equations is convenient.
According to Gianetto and Silveston [1986], the effectiveness factor change much more
slowly through the reactor than do the reaction rate or concentration. Thus, the effectiveness
factor only has to be estimated at the inlet, in the middle and at the outlet of the reactor.
Gianetto and Silveston [1986] reported expressions for the Thiele modulus and effectiveness
factor for various kinetic reaction rate expressions.
However, when the wetting is not complete, conventional intraparticle effectiveness factors
are not applicable since the concentration of reactant at the external catalyst surface is not
uniform. According to Gianetto and Silveston [1986], it is necessary to consider mass transfer
from gas to liquid, from liquid to the portion of the particle in contact with flowing liquid, and
direct transport from gas to the part of the particle in contact with the gas. Expression for an
overall effectiveness factor in case of spherical catalyst particles partly in contact with
flowing liquid, and partly in direct contact with gas, was derived by Gianetto and Silveston
[1986] for first order kinetics. The whole idea is that the overall effectiveness factor,
o
, is
divided into two parts one for the wetted catalyst surface (f) and one for the dry catalyst
surface (1-f), where f is the wetting efficiency:
g l o
f f q q q ) 1 ( + =
where
l
and
g
are effectiveness factors for entire particle surface (i.e. overall effectiveness
factors that include external mass transfer resistance as well as internal) covered by liquid and
gas, respectively. The particle effectiveness factor, , i.e. the one concerning internal mass
transfer restrictions only, is included in the expressions for
l
and
g
. See Gianetto and
Silveston [1986] for the complete expression. The overall rate, r, of formation/disappearance
of one component can then be expressed as:
*
l o
kC r q =
where C
l
*
is the liquid phase concentration in equilibrium with the bulk gas concentration.
Partial wetting should only affect the overall rate/effectiveness factor if
g
>
l
. In order to
estimate the role of wetting on the overall rate, it is necessary to know the wetting efficiency f.
A correlation useful for scale-up is:
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
75 . 0
, 2 . 0 05 . 0
36 . 1 exp 1
L
c L
l l
We Ga f
o
o
where Ga
l
= d
p
3
g/
l
2
, and
l
the kinematic viscosity of the liquid in [m
2
/s].
46
3.6 Backmixing
3.6.1 One-parameter models
The 1-dimensional dispersion models characterize the backmixing with just a single
parameter the dispersion coefficient. The assumption that all the mixing processes follow a
Ficks law type of diffusion becomes increasingly dubious with increasing degree of
backmixing. But the dispersion models are still very widely used due to their simplicity, since
they describe the backmixing (or RTD) by simply one parameter. In multiphase reactors, the
degree of backmixing is accounted for in each phase. The degree of backmixing is often much
higher for the slow moving liquid phase compared to the fast moving gas phase, which often
leads to a plug-flow model (zero dispersion/backmixing) for the latter [Shah, 1979]. The
effective axial dispersion coefficient, D
ea
, is expressed in dimensionless form as the Peclet
number (based on particle diameter):
ea
p i
a
D
d u
Pe =
where u
i
is the interstitial velocity in [m reactor/s] of the phase encountered. The Peclet
number, at a Reynolds number of 10 (based on particle diameter), is approximately 0.2 for the
liquid phase in the trickle-bed, compared to approximately 2 for the fluid in a single-phase
operation [Froment and Bischoff, 1990].
Froment and Bischoff [1990] claimed that in laboratory-scale, the minimum reactor length for
absence of axial dispersion in the gas phase can be an order of magnitude higher for a trickle-
bed than for single-phase fixed beds. However, in industrial reactors, the axial dispersion in
gas phase can be neglected.
Elenkov and Kolev [1972], a reference in Froment and Bischoff [1990], developed the
following expression for estimation of D
ea
in the liquid in a trickle-bed:
33 . 0
2 3
2
78 . 0
4
068 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
=
L v
L
L v
L
v ea
sL
a
g
a
L
a D
u
Deviations from plug-flow in the gas-phase of trickle-bed reactors are often not concerned. Of
course the conventional way to find D
ea
is to make a tracer experiment in the phase of interest,
and then to calculate the E(t), the residence time distribution function. The E(t) describes the
dimensionless outlet tracer concentration (C
out
(t)/C
out
(t) integrated from t
0
- t
) as a function
of time, and by setting up mass balances and boundary conditions / initial values for the tracer
(including the dispersion term), the numerical solution (i.e. C
out
(t)) expression may be fitted to
the experimentally found E(t) by choosing a suitable D
ea
.
According to Shah [1979], maldistribution of the flow is common in laboratory-scale trickle-
beds. The maldistribution, such as channeling, dead zones and bypassing etc. result in
complex RTD evaluation. If such phenomena cannot be avoided in the system, micromixing
models (see Fogler [1999] for an explanation) have to be set up to correlate such unusual
shapes of RTD curves. Micromixing models describe how molecules of different ages
encounter one another in the reactor, unlike the macromixing models (i.e. the RTD) which
only describe the distribution of residence times.
47
RTDs for each phase is needed in order to describe the backmixing. However, as mentioned
above, the gas phase is often considered to be a plug flow. Figures 7-10 below show an ideal
RTD and RTDs for systems with maldistributional flows for typical trickle-bed reactors.
Figure 7. An ideal RTD curve, and a RTD curve with tailing [Shah, 1979].
Figure 8. RTD curve for a reactor with channeling [Shah, 1979].
Figure 9. RTD curve for a reactor with large dead space [Shah, 1979].
48
Figure 10. RTD curve for a reactor with bypassing [Shah, 1979].
Channeling and bypassing are undesirable phenomena since they reduce the utilization of the
catalyst. Proper design of the liquid distributor and a calming section in large-scale trickle-
beds can essentially eliminate the maldistributions of flows. It is also important to use the
same type of particles (same porosity) in the large-scale as in the laboratory scale since tailing
will occur due to the static liquid hold-up in the pores, shown in Figure 7.
Shah [1979] presented several models for describing the backmixing/macromixing in trickle-
bed reactors. The most common, although with a rather poor capability of predicting the
backmixing, are the axial dispersion models, as described above in 2. Dispersion model
equations for multiphase systems. The dispersion model gives satisfactory correlation to the
measured RTD data as long as radial-flow nonuniformities are minimized by keeping a large
reactor diameter / particle diameter (> 25). Michell and Furzer, a reference in Shah [1979],
claimed that a dispersion model of the liquid phase does not describe the true nature of
trickling flow. In their so called bypass model, the liquid phase is modeled as a laminar film
flow over a series of packing elements with imperfect mixing, or bypassing, at each packing
junction. The liquid film is assumed plug-flow, and the static liquid hold-up at the junctions
well-mixed by hydrodynamic effects, such as ripples, that cause axial dispersion in the
reactor. At each junction, a fraction q of the flow enters the perfectly mixed regions, while the
rest of the flow bypasses the mixing. This is illustrated in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Schematic picture of the bypass model [Shah, 1979].
49
Michell and Furzer derived the following expression for the mean residence time, t
mL
, of the
liquid:
M F
mL
t q t t q q + =
where is the bed height divided by packing diameter, t
F
is the mean residence time of a
single film and t
M
the mean residence time in a single mixer. Expression for t
F
and t
M
are
given below:
f
p
F
u
d
t =
sL
p statL L
M
qu
d
t
c
=
where u
f
is the mean flow velocity in the film,
statL
the static liquid hold-up and u
sL
the
superficial liquid velocity in [m
3
liquid/m
2
reactor, s]. u
f
is related to the wetted surface area,
a
w
, according to:
3 / 1 3 / 2
48
4
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L
L
L w
sL
f
g
a
u
u
The expression for E(t) for a Dirac pulse tracer input, in case of the bypass model equations,
will be:
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
=
M x
x
M
x x
t
t
t
t
x x x
q q
t q t E exp
)! 1 ( )! 1 ( )! (
) 1 ( !
) ( ) 1 ( ) (
1
1
q q
q
q
q
o
Since a
w
and u
sL
often can be estimated from experiments, the only unknown parameter that
has to be found, in order to fit the experimental results to the model, is q. Hence, both the
dispersion and bypass models are typical single-parameter models (D
ea
and q).
3.6.2 Two-parameter model
Shah [1979] presented three two-parameter models and one three-parameter model for
description of the backmixing in multiphase reactors. Below, one two-parameter will be
shown as an example.
This model was referred to as the two-parameter modified mixing-cell model in Shah [1979],
and as the two-zone model in Froment and Bischoff [1990]. According to Froment and
Bischoff [1990], the deviations from plug-flow in the liquid phase of a multi-phase packed-
bed reactor are mainly caused by insufficient contact between the gas and liquid. The reason
for this phenomenon may be preferential paths in the packing or stagnant zones. These effects
can often not be described satisfactorily by effective diffusion models. A more appropriate
50
description could be made using a two-zone model. Briefly, in such a model, only a fraction
of the liquid flows through the packing, and the rest of the liquid is considered stagnant. The
stagnant liquid phase is assumed to be well-mixed and exchanges mass with the flowing
fraction of the liquid and with the catalyst particles. Note that in the one-parameter bypass
model described above, no mass transfer between the film and stagnant zones was
encountered.
The mass balance for A in the gas-phase is written as shown in 2. Dispersion model equations
for multiphase systems. The mass balance for A in the liquid phases can be written [Froment
and Bischoff, 1990]:
MB for A in flowing fraction of liquid:
0 ) ( ) (
' ' ' '
= |
.
|
\
|
+
s
As
f
AL v l
f
AL
A
v L
d
AL
f
AL T
f
AL
iL
f
L
C C a k C
H
p
a K C C k
dz
dC
u c
where u
iL
=
=
(i = 1, nb of total components involved)
EB: ) ( 4 ) ( ) 1 (
3
2
0
1
3
g w
t
R
NR
j
j j s
p
g
p g s
T T
d
U
d r H
R dz
dT
c u
p
+ A =
}
=
c
Initial conditions:
z = 0: c
i
= c
i,0
P = P
in
T
g
= T
in
Liquid/solid phase:
MB:
=
=
NR
j
j ij s
is
ei
r
d
dC
d
d
D
1
2
2
) (
1
o
(i = 1, nb of key components involved)
EB:
=
A =
NR
j
j j s
s
e
r H
d
dT
d
d
1
2
2
) ( ) (
1
Boundary conditions:
= 0: 0 =
d
dC
is
0 =
d
dT
s
= R
p
:
i
V
i
L
i
i
x y
= ) (
g s
e
f
s
T T
h
d
dT
=
where y
i
and x
i
are the mole fractions of component i in gas and liquid, respectively, and
L
i
and
V
i
are the fugacity coefficients in liquid and gas phase, respectively. This boundary
condition means that component i is in its equilibrium concentrations in the wax and the gas.
Wang et al. [2003] chose to describe the pressure drop in the bed with the classical Ergun
equation:
p
s g
p
d
u
f
dz
dP
2
=
63
The Peng-Robinson EOS (equation of state) was used to calculate
g
and hence u
s
. The ideal
gas-law can only be applied at low reactor pressures.
The rather complex kinetic rate expressions used in the model by Wang et al. [2003] can be
found in Wang et al. [2001]. Rate expressions were set up for the products, which included
CH
4
, paraffins and olefins of different carbon numbers, and CO
2
(WGS-reaction). All reaction
rate expressions included the chain growth parameter, , defined above. The chain growth
parameter used by Wang et al. [2001, 2003] was slightly modified compared to the original
ASF
as defined by Anderson, Schulz and Flory. The modified is not constant, but changes
with carbon number, and also accounts for the so-called olefin readsorption factor (
n
). If the
catalyst has a high
n
, the probability that a desorbed hydrocarbon chain will readsorb on the
catalyst surface and continue to grow is high. This phenomenon gives higher waxes and hence
higher . The definition of
n
can be found in Wang et al. [2001]. This factor can be
calculated knowing the rate constant for the olefin readsorption reaction, k
-6
, and the partial
pressures of the hydrocarbon products (paraffins and olefins). The
n
however approaches 0
rather quickly with increasing carbon number. Practically, ethene, which is the shortest olefin,
has the highest readsorption ability, and it is often an order of magnitude higher than the
readsorption ability of propene.
6 5 1
1
2
k P k P k
P k
H CO
CO
ASF
+ +
= o
) 1 (
6 5 1
1
2
n H CO
CO
n
k P k P k
P k
|
o
+ +
=
The parameters k
5
and k
6
are rate constants for paraffin formation and olefin desorption,
respectively. The description of k
1
was not given in Wang et al [2001], but is probably the rate
constant for consumption of CO.
Wang et al. [2001] characterized the wax by NMR and found it to be approximately n-C
28
H
58
in all experimental runs, why this was also put into the model. Dispersion coefficients for H
2
,
CO and CO
2
in this wax, D
i
, were taken from literature and could be fitted to expressions as a
function of temperature. Dispersion coefficients for the other components were approximated
by means of diffusivity correlations in infinitely dilute solutions:
6 . 0
) / (
i CO CO i
V V D D =
where V is the mole volume. The effective diffusivity of component i was calculated by
correcting the molecular diffusivities for the porosity and tortuosity of the catalyst pellets:
t
c
i s
ei
D
D =
Clearly, this model should only work satisfactorily if the composition of the wax is close to n-
C
28
H
58
, and therefore should not be so accurate in predicting reactor operation under
conditions far away from those upon which the model is based.
64
In order to make the system of equations converge, the surface liquid concentrations in
equilibrium with the bulk gas concentrations were set as guess values for the unknown
concentrations inside the catalyst pellets.
Below, some of the results from the simulation are discussed. Figure 16 shows the
concentration profiles of CO, H
2
, CO
2
and H
2
O inside of the wax-filled catalyst pores (0 is at
center and 1 at pellet surface).
Figure 16. Concentration profiles of key components in catalyst pellet [Wang et al., 2001].
The further the FT-reaction proceeds, the more water is produced, which is seen in the
increasing H
2
O concentration towards the middle of the particle. The more water, the more
CO is consumed in the WGS reaction, at the same time as it is consumed in the FT-reaction,
which explains the rapid decrease in CO concentration between 1 and 0.8R
p
. This means that
the reaction zone is actually only in 0.2R
p
, which is in good agreement with a value of 0.24R
p
reported in literature for catalyst pellets of 3 mm in diameter. The rapid decrease in CO
concentration in the outmost particle shell is also due to the far more severe diffusion
limitations on CO compared to H
2
. However, since the concentrations of CO
2
and H
2
are
rather high at this point (0.85R
p
), the reversed WGS-reaction will be triggered, and hence
provide some CO for the FT-reaction even far inside of the pellet.
Since both the reaction order with reference to P
H2
and P
CO
are positive, lower partial
pressures of these reactants will result in a lower reaction rate inside of the catalyst pellet
compared to at the surface. Furthermore, because of the higher H
2
/CO ratio inside of the
particle, see Figure 17, the selectivity to waxes will be lower here.
65
Figure 17. Variation of H
2
/CO ratio along the pellet dimension [Wang et al., 2001].
An improved diffusion of the CO would increase the reaction rate as well as the selectivity to
waxes.
The authors calculated the effectiveness factor for several different cases. The effectiveness
factor was calculated by dividing the true pellet-volume-averaged consumption rate of CO
with the pellet-volume-averaged consumption rate of CO if the CO concentration would be as
high as at the surface throughout the whole pellet. Figure 18 and 19 show the effectiveness
factor as a function of temperature and pellet diameter, respectively.
Figure 18. Variation of effectiveness factor with operation temperatures at different pressures [Wang et al.,
2001].
66
Figure 19. Variation of effectiveness factor with pellet size [Wang et al., 2001].
Figure 20 shows the HC distribution as a function of temperature. Figures 21 and 22 show the
selectivity to CH
4
and CO
2
, and C
2+
and C
5+
, respectively, as a function of pellet size.
Figure 20. Product distribution of hydrocarbons at different temperatures [Wang et al., 2001].
67
Figure 21. Selectivity variations of CO
2
and CH
4
with pellet radius [Wang et al., 2001].
Figure 22. Selectivity variations of C
2
+
and C
5
+
products with pellet radius [Wang et al., 2001].
The conclusion is that small catalyst particles favour the formation of the desired products, at
the same time as the reaction rate is higher. However, in industrial applications the pellet size
should not be below 2 mm, in order to avoid a large pressure drop. The solution is to use so-
called egg-shell impregnation, in which the active metal, in this case Fe, is situated only in the
outmost shell of the pellet. The size of the inert core will have to be optimised in order to gain
a high selectivity to wax, at the same time keeping the total activity not so much under the
activity of the uniformly impregnated pellet. Figure 23 shows the effect of the inert core
radius on the selectivity to C
5+
for a catalyst pellet with a radius of 1.5 mm.
68
Figure 23. Effect of inert core radius on C
5
+
selectivity [Wang et al., 2001].
Figure 24 shows that with an inert core radius of up to 80% of R
p
, the reaction rate is actually
not lower compared to the uniform pellet. This indicates that the egg-shell impregnation can
improve the selectivity to waxes, avoiding a significant increase of the reactor volume to
obtain the same productivity as compared to uniform catalyst pellets.
Figure 24. Effect of inert core radius on effectiveness factor [Wang et al., 2001].
The model could satisfactorily predict the performance of different-scale demonstration
processes. The main conclusions from the modelling of Wang et al. [2003] were that a large
tube diameter was unfavourable for the total yield of higher HCs, and that the inner diameter
should not exceed 60 mm. This is a direct effect of the increased bed temperature as a larger
tube diameter implies a poorer heat removal (see Figure 25).
69
Recycling resulted in thermal stability of the reactor, avoiding the hot spot in the beginning of
the reactor, and also enhanced the yield of desired products. With a high recycle ratio the bed
was almost isothermal. The recycle operation means that the superficial gas velocity is
increased, but the space velocity of the fresh feed is unchanged. The lower overall
temperature decreases the CO-conversion, but the total syngas conversion is actually
increased due to the increase in H
2
/CO usage ratio (i.e. decrease in WGS-reaction rate).
However, from a practical point of view, the power consumption should always be taken into
consideration when choosing the recycle ratio.
An increase in cooling temperature can increase the syngas conversion, but lowers the yield of
higher HCs. Hence, a lower cooling temperature is recommended. An increase in pressure
favours both conversion and yield to desired products.
Fig. 25. Effect of process parameters on the axial temperature profile in the fixed-bed reactor. Base conditions:
d
t
=32 mm, L=7.0 m, GHSV=500 h
1
, Rcyc=3.0, T
w
=T
g,0
=523 K, P
in
=25 bar. Fresh syngas composition (%): CO:
30.59; H
2
: 57.75; CO
2
: 7.0; N
2
: 4.08; CH
4
: 0.58 [Wang et al., 2003].
70
4.4.2 Jess et al. [1999]
Jess et al. [1999] developed a two-dimensional pseudo-homogeneous model for FT-synthesis
over a Fe-catalyst.
In the model by Jess et al. [1999], only mass transfer by convection (only in axial direction)
and reaction was considered in the MB. In the EB, radial conduction, advective heat transport
in axial direction, and reaction was encountered. Note that Jess et al. considered the radial
temperature gradients and radial heat transfer, while neglecting radial concentration gradients.
Below follows the model equations used by Jess et al. [1999] with the same symbols as used
by Froment and Bischoff [1990]:
MB:
j
NR
j
ij s
i s
r
dz
C u d
=
=
1
) 1 (
) (
o c
(i = 1, nb of total components involved)
EB:
=
A =
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
NR
j
j j s p g s er
r H
dz
dT
c u
dr
dT
r dr
T d
1
2
2
) ( ) 1 (
1
c
Initial conditions:
z = 0, 0 s r s R
i
: c
i
= c
i,0
P = P
in
T
g
= T
in
Boundary conditions:
r = 0, all z: 0 =
dr
dT
All z, all r: 0 =
dr
dC
r = R
i
, all z: ) (
, ,
,
i w i R
er
i w
T T
dr
dT
=
o
r = R
o
, all z: ) (
,
,
cool o w
w
o w
T T
dr
dT
=
o
where R
i
is the tube inner radius, and R
o
the tube outer radius,
w,i
and
w,o
[W/m
2
,K] the inner
and outer wall heat transfer coefficient, respectively.
w
is the heat conductivity of the wall
[W/m,K].
Jess et al. [1999] expressed the consumption rate of CO as the sum of three rates, as shown in
Figure 26.
71
Fig. 26. Kinetic data of the three main reactions during FT-synthesis on the iron-catalyst (ARGE-Lurgi-
Ruhrchemie) [Jess et al., 1999].
The rate expressions above are not truly kinetic. Rather, they are only valid in the case of
mass transfer limitations inside the catalyst pellets. Hence, the rate expressions describe the
rate at which CO is consumed if diffusion of reactants through the catalyst pores is the rate
limiting step, and are, for pellet diameters > 2.5 mm, only valid at temperatures above 170 C.
External diffusion limitations could, according to Jess et al. [1999], be neglected up to 400 C,
but this is just a hypothetic value since the catalyst would rapidly deactivate at temperatures
above 260 C. These rate expressions corresponds to an effectiveness factor of 0.2 at 250 C,
and the activation energies in the expressions are approximately half of the true activation
energies, which is typical in the range of pore diffusion limitations [Fogler, 1999]. In their
pseudo-homogeneous model, Bub et al. [1980] also used non-kinetic rate data based on
laboratory experiments with rather large particle diameters. By using the same particle
diameter in the laboratory experiments as used in the pilot-scale reactor to be modeled, the
possible intraparticle mass transfer limitation on the overall rate was not necessary to be
considered.
Unlike Wang et al. [2003], the rate expressions of Jess et al. [1999] do not include the product
selectivity. It was not explained how the selectivity was calculated. Since the model is
pseudo-homogeneous, the diffusion of reactants through the waxes inside the catalyst pores is
72
baked in in the rate expressions, and in this way intraparticle gradients are somehow
accounted for, but this model should not be so accurate in predicting reactor operation under
conditions far away from those upon which the model is based. For instance, it can only be
applied if the catalyst pellets have exactly the same dimensions as the pellets used in the
kinetic measurements.
The object was to make a model that could predict the performance with a nitrogen-rich (50
vol-%) syngas. By producing the syngas by partial oxidation of natural gas with air, instead of
with pure oxygen, the need for the capital intense air separation unit is eliminated. Due to the
high inert concentration, this concept can (or must, in order not to build up inerts or to be
forced to bleed off a large stream) work without recycling of the tail gas and hence does not
need a recycle compressor.
The results of the modeling showed that nitrogen plays an important role in removing the heat
released by the FT-reaction. This led to an optimum tube diameter of 70 mm for a stable and
safe operation, compared to 45 mm for the nitrogen-free syngas. The production rate per tube
was about three times higher than in the case with a nitrogen-free syngas, due to the possible
high once-through conversion. This would decrease the investment cost of multitubular fixed-
bed reactors. However, since nitrogen is diluting the system, a higher total pressure will be
needed in order to preserve the partial reactant pressures, which is important for the kinetics.
The critical temperatures were defined as the temperatures not to be exceeded in order to
avoid a temperature runaway. The estimation of these temperatures can be found in Jess et al.
[1999]. Figure 27 shows how the tube diameter influences the critical temperatures in the
nitrogen-free and rich cases.
Fig. 27. Influence of the diameter of the single tubes of a FT-reactor on the critical maximum temperature for
nitrogen-rich and nitrogen-free syngas (volume rate of syngas according to
e
= 25 s) [Jess et al., 1999].
73
4.5 Modeling of the slurry phase reactor
According to Krishna and Sie [2000], the best reactor choice is the slurry phase reactor (or as
they call it the bubble column slurry reactor) for large-scale plants with capacities around
40,000 bpd. It was calculated that for such a large total production, 10 TFBR, 17 slurry
reactors operating in the homogeneous regime or four slurry reactors operating in the
heterogeneous regime are needed. The limiting criterion was a maximum reactor weight of
900 tons.
4.5.1 Different flow regimes and estimation of gas hold-up
The homogeneous regime is characterized by a relatively low superficial gas velocity, u
sG
,
and by small bubbles (d
b
= 1 7 mm). When the superficial gas velocity reaches the value
U
trans
, coalescence of the small bubbles occurs and larger bubbles are produced. The regime
with larger bubbles (d
b
= 20 70 mm) and higher u
sG
is called the heterogeneous regime.
(Figure 28 shows a schematic of the two regions.) These larger bubbles have a high rising
speed through the column (1 2 m/s) in a plug-flow manner. Smaller bubbles are also present
in the heterogeneous regime, and since they are entrained in the liquid phase, they are often
assumed to have the same backmixing characteristics as the liquid phase. When the catalyst
particles are small (< 50 m), they are well mixed with the liquid, and the slurry phase can be
regarded as a pseudo-homogeneous phase. This assumption, with no catalyst settling, works
well at larger reactor diameters (> 0.5 m) at high gas velocities (u
sG
> 0.2 m/s).
Fig. 28. Homogeneous and churnturbulent regimes in a gasliquid bubble column. The figure on the right
shows that increasing the system pressure delays the regime transition point [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
The volume fraction of catalyst in the liquid,
cat,L
(
s
in Figure 29) strongly affects the gas
hold up,
G
( in Figure 29).
74
Fig. 29. Influence of increased particles concentration on the total gas hold-up in columns of (a) 0.1 m and (b)
0.38 m diameter. Air was used as the gas phase in all experiments. The liquid phase was paraffin oil (density,
L
=790 kg m
3
; viscosity,
L
=0.0029 Pa s; surface tension, =0.028 N/m) to which solid particles in varying
concentrations were added. The solid phase used consisted of porous silica particles (skeleton density=2100 kg
m
3
; pore volume=1.05 ml g
1
; particle size distribution, d
p
: 10%<27 m; 50%<38 m; 90%<47 m). The solids
concentration
s
, is expressed as the volume fraction of solids in gas free slurry. The pore volume of the
particles (liquid-filled during operation) is counted as a part of the solid phase [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
For modeling purposes it is important to distinguish between the gas hold up in large bubbles
and that in the small bubbles. This can be made by instantaneously switching off the gas flow
to a slurry column at time t = 0. The gas hold-up will quickly decrease due to the escape of
large bubbles. After this quick reduction in gas hold-up, the small bubbles escape and the gas
hold-up is further reduced, as illustrated in Figure 30. From this experiment, the voidage of
gas in the dense phase (see Figure 30),
G,df
, the gas hold-up in the large bubbles,
G,b
, and the
superficial velocity through the dense phase, u
s,df
, can be estimated. u
s,df
is often taken to be
the same as U
trans
.
Fig. 30. Dynamic gas disengagement experiments for air/paraffin oil and air/36 vol.% paraffin oil slurry in the
0.38-m-diameter column. The system properties are as given in the legend to Figure 29 [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
75
It is clearly seen that the higher the catalyst concentration in the slurry phase,
cat,L
, the smaller
is the gas hold-up in the small bubbles. This is due to the increased coalescence of small
particles into bigger in the presence of solid particles. At
cat,L
> 30 %, the population of small
bubbles is destroyed. The
G,df
for a certain
cat,L
is essentially constant at u
sG
> 0.1 m/s for the
heterogeneous regime. Furthermore, the
G,df
is essentially independent on reactor diameter
(D
T
). This is very useful for scale-up purposes, since a rather small reactor can be used to
determine the
G,df
under actual reaction conditions.
The
G,b
, however, of course increases with increasing superficial velocity through the large
bubble phase (u
sG
-u
s,df
), but seems to be independent on
cat,L
in the range 0.16 <
cat,L
< 0.36.
Unlike the
G,df
, the
G,b
(
b
in Figure 31) is strongly dependent of the reactor diameter. The
G,b
is reduced at large diameters due to the increase in rise velocity, which, in turn is due to
the reduced wall effects at large diameters. Relationships to find the large bubble rise velocity
for different d
b
/D
T
ratios is found in Krishna end Sie [2000].
Fig. 31. Influence of column diameter on the hold-up of large bubbles
b
in (a) paraffin slurries and (b) Tellus
oil [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
These relationships must be modified to be valid at higher pressures, as shown in Figure 32.
The modifications are presented in Krishna and Sie [2000]. Briefly, the expression for
calculation of the rise velocity of large bubbles, u
b
, is corrected for the higher density of a gas
at higher pressure compared to atmospheric pressure. u
b
for syngas at 30 bars, which is
common in FT, is for instance only 43% of the u
b
for air at atmospheric pressure, which is
easily understood since the gas densities are 7 kg/m
3
and 1.29 kg/m
3
for the pressurized
syngas and the atmospheric air, respectively.
76
Fig. 32. The influence of elevated pressure on gas hold-up [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
When the u
b
is known, the
G,b
can be calculated through the steps below.
G,df
in a pressurized
system can be estimated by:
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L cat
df G ref G
G
df G df G ,
0 , ,
48 . 0
,
0 , , ,
7 . 0
1 c
c
c c
where
G,df,0
is
G,df
at 0% catalyst concentration,
G,ref
is the density of gas at ambient
conditions, and
G
the density of the gas at pressurized conditions. The rise velocity of the
small bubbles, in atmospheric or pressurized systems, can be calculated by:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
L cat
small
small small
u
u u
,
0 ,
0 ,
8 . 0
1 c
where u
small,0
is the rise velocity at 0% catalyst concentration. This is not much affected by
pressure. The superficial gas velocity through the dense phase is estimated by:
df G small df s
u u
, ,
c =
Since u
b
is known and defined as:
b G
df s sG
b
u u
u
,
,
) (
c
=
we can now calculate
G,b
. The total gas hold-up in a pressurized slurry column can be
calculated according to:
) 1 (
, , , b G df G b G G
c c c c + =
4.5.2 Mass transfer
As mentioned above, in slurry reactors intraparticle diffusion limitations are often negligible,
due to the small pellets used. Mass transfer from gas to liquid can however be rate limiting.
This is often the case with highly active catalysts in high concentrations in slurry reactors
operating in the heterogeneous regime.
77
The large bubbles represent the major gas throughput. Conventional calculation of mass
transfer rates predicts a very low mass transfer between the gas and slurry phase for large
bubbles. Experiments have, however, shown that the real mass transfer rates are 5 10 times
higher than that expected from conventional calculations based on hold-up and bubble size.
The explanation to this is that during the characteristic time for mass transfer from the gas to
the liquid, the bubbles exchange gas with other bubble size classes. In conclusion, the large
bubbles represent the major gas throughput, but gas-liquid mass transfer is mainly determined
by the interfacial area between the small bubbles and the slurry. In most cases, the mass
transfer between gas and liquid is not limiting the overall rate in FT-synthesis. The volumetric
mass transfer (g/l) coefficient for the large bubbles, (k
L
a)
large
, can be calculated according to:
ref L
L
b G
e l L
D
D
a k
, ,
arg
5 . 0
) (
=
c
where D
L
is the diffusivity in the liquid phase and D
L,ref
is a constant of 2 * 10
-9
m
2
/s. The
diffusivities of the reactants CO and H
2
at 240 C are 17.2 * 10
-9
and 45.5 * 10
-9
m
2
/s,
respectively. For the small bubbles, the expression has been found to be the same as for the
large bubbles, but with a constant of 1.0 instead of 0.5:
ref L
L
df G
small L
D
D a k
, ,
0 . 1
) (
=
c
Note that the mass transfer coefficients k
L
a, are not the same as k
L
in Bischoff and Froment
[1990] in which this is a mass transfer coefficient from g/l interface to liquid bulk. k
L
a used
by Maretto and Krishna in this case is an overall mass transfer coefficient from gas bulk to
liquid bulk, including the interfacial area.
4.5.3. Mixing
The large bubbles concentrate in the middle of the column and carry the liquid upwards. At
the top of the column, the large bubbles escape from the slurry, and the liquid is recirculated.
The larger the reactor diameter, the bigger is the liquid velocity, V
L
, upwards in the middle
and downwards at the wall. However, by normalizing the liquid velocities by dividing V
L
(r)
with the liquid velocity at the central line, V
L
(0), the radial distributions are similar for all
reactor diameters. Hence, the liquid phase axial dispersion coefficient, D
a,L
, should be
proportional to V
L
(0). One useful relationship is:
8 / 1
3
2 / 1
) ( 2 . 0 ) 0 (
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L
T L
g
U
gD V
u
where
L
is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid phase. Krishna and Sie [2000] showed that
the backmixing of the slurry phase is actually the same as for low viscosity liquids, such as
water, at the same superficial gas velocity. Measurements of the D
a,L
have led to the following
simple relationship:
T L L a
D V D ) 0 ( 31 . 0
,
=
78
Estimation of D
a,L
in a commercial scale bubble slurry column with a reactor diameter of 7 m
and a superficial gas velocity of 0.35 m/s yields D
a,L
= 10 m
2
/s. This high value of the
dispersion coefficient suggests that the slurry phase is well mixed, and hence can be modeled
as a CSTR.
4.5.4 Heat transfer
The heat transfer is favored by high gas velocities and high
cat,L
(
s
in Figure 33), which are
typical for the heterogeneous regime.
Fig. 33. Estimate of the heat transfer coefficients to vertical cooling tubes [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
4.5.5 The model
The model, the results of which were briefly described in Krishna and Sie [2000], can be
found in Maretto and Krishna [1999]. A schematic picture of the model is given in Figure 34,
in which U = u
sG
, and U
df
= u
s,df
.
Fig. 34. Generalized two-phase model applied to a bubble column slurry reactor operating in the churnturbulent
regime [Krishna and Sie, 2000].
79
The slurry was assumed to have the properties of C
16
H
34
. The rate expression for the
consumption of syngas was taken from Yates and Satterfield [1991]:
2
) 1 (
2
2
CO
CO H
H CO
bp
p ap
R
+
=
+
where a and b depend on the catalyst used, and are varying with temperature. Note that
according to the FT-reaction stoichiometry, R
H2
= 2R
CO
. The selectivity was described with
the ASF-distribution and only paraffins (C
n
H
2n+2
) were assumed, the molar fraction of which
was expressed as:
1
) 1 (
=
n
ASF ASF n
x o o
ASF
was set to 0.9.
As mentioned above, in the heterogeneous regime, which was modeled in this article, the
larger bubbles (20 70 mm) travel up the column at high velocities (1 2 m/s) in a plug-flow
manner, resulting in a well-mixed slurry. The smaller bubbles are hence entrained in the
slurry.
A one-dimensional heterogeneous model was made of a slurry reactor with a diameter of 7 m
and height of 30 m. The temperature was 240 C and pressure 30 bar. The large bubbles were
modeled as if being in plug-flow, with a superficial velocity of u
s
-u
s,df
, and the slurry phase
was assumed to be well-mixed. The temperature was assumed being constant in the reactor
and the catalyst particles, why no energy balances are needed. The model assumes that
resistance between liquid and catalyst surface is negligible, and also intraparticle gradients
were neglected. The catalyst pellets had a diameter of 50 m.
MB large bubbles:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L CO
CO
e l G CO
e l CO L
e l G CO df s sG
C
H
C
a k
dz
C u u d
,
arg , ,
arg ,
arg , , ,
) (
) ) ((
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
L H
H
e l G H
e l H L
e l G H df s sG
C
H
C
a k
dz
C u u d
,
arg , ,
arg ,
arg , , ,
2
2
2
2
2
) (
) ) ((
MB small bubbles:
Z C
H
C
a k C C u
L CO
CO
small G CO
small CO L small G CO
i
G CO df s
O
|
|
.
|
\
|
= O
,
, ,
, , , , ,
) ( ) (
Z C
H
C
a k C C u
L H
H
small G H
small H L small G H
i
G H df s
O
|
|
.
|
\
|
= O
,
, ,
, , , , ,
2
2
2
2 2 2
) ( ) (
80
where is the cross sectional area of the reactor in [m
2
], Z is the dispersion height of the
reactor in [m], and superscript i means inlet of reactor. It was assumed that the concentration
of CO in the inlet gas is equal in large and small bubbles and equals C
i
CO,G
. The same was
assumed for H
2
. The superficial gas velocity through small bubbles, u
s,df
, was assumed
constant in the whole reactor.
MB liquid phase:
0 ) ( ) (
2
, ,
, ,
, ,
arg . ,
0
arg ,
= O + O
|
|
.
|
\
|
O +
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
+
}
H CO L L CO
o
sL L CO
CO
small G CO
small CO L L CO
CO
e l G CO
Z
e l CO L
R Z C u C
H
C
a k Z dz C
H
C
a k c
0 2 ) ( ) (
2 2 2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
, ,
, ,
, ,
arg . ,
0
arg ,
= O + O
|
|
.
|
\
|
O +
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
+
}
H CO L L H
o
sL L H
H
small G H
small H L L H
H
e l G H
Z
e l H L
R Z C u C
H
C
a k Z dz C
H
C
a k c
where
L
is the slurry hold-up, equal to 1-
G
, since in the case with a slurry reactor the catalyst
particles are included in the slurry. The equations for the liquid phase are typical equations for
a CSTR, i.e. the concentrations in the slurry are assumed constant in the reactor, and also the
concentrations in the small bubbles, which means that the MB for the slurry is an overall MB
for that phase. Since the concentrations in the large bubbles are not constant, the mass transfer
between gas and liquid must be integrated along the reactor in order to fit in in the overall MB
for the slurry phase. The Henrys constants were used as estimated solubilities for H
2
and CO
in the wax, which was assumed to have the characteristics of C
16
H
34
, and equal to 2.478 and
2.964 at a temperature of 240 C for CO and H
2
, respectively.
It was also assumed that the contraction of gas volume due to reaction only affects the large
bubbles. The contraction factor, , for 100 % syngas conversion was estimated to 0.648,
assuming 5 % inert in the syngas feed. Hence, the superficial gas velocity through large
bubbles decreases with conversion according to:
) 1 )( (
, ,
X u u u u
df s
i
sG df s sG
u + =
where X is the conversion of CO (or H
2
). The conversion of CO equals the conversion of H
2
in this case since the inlet molar H
2
/CO ratio is the same as the usage ratio in the reactor, i.e.
2. The reason for why this relationship was set up is that the authors only considered mass
balances and distribution between gas and liquid phase for the reactants (and not the
products). Therefore, there is lack of information considering how many moles of gas that
exist at different z-points in the reactor. The expression above estimates this information.
The solution to the equations above was found by means of an iterative procedure. This kind
of solution is typical when differential equations are coupled with algebraic ones, and in this
case most probably means that the concentration in the well-mixed phases are guessed as start
values, and then integration of the gas-phase along the reactor will give new guessed values of
the concentrations in the well-mixed phases, closer to the true ones. The authors mentioned
that it was possible to describe the concentration of one reactant as a function of the other,
which simplified the solution of the equations.
Simulations were made with u
sG
= 0.12 0.4 m/s and
cat,L
= 0.20 0.35. Since the reactor was
assumed to be isothermal, all reaction heat must be removed. This was modeled by assuming
81
vertical cooling tubes of 50 mm in diameter, with coolant of 230 C. The heat transfer
coefficient from slurry to coolant was estimated by:
) Pr (Re 1 . 0
2
G
Fr St =
where the different dimensionless groups are explained in Deckwer et al. [1982], a reference
in Maretto and Krishna [1999]. The slurry density was calculated from:
L cat p L cat
Sk
L
L Sl , ,
1 c c
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
where
p
is the catalyst density in [kg/m
3
of particle including voids] and
Sk
is the catalyst
skeleton density in [kg/m
3
of catalyst solids without voids]. The slurry viscosity was
estimated according to:
) 5 . 4 1 (
,L cat L Sl
c + =
4.5.6 The results
Results from the simulation are shown in Figures 35 - 37. It can be seen that as the superficial
gas velocity, u
sG
(or U in Figure 35), increases, the conversion decreases, but the productivity
increases. That the productivity increases as the space velocity is increased should be due to
an enhanced mass transfer. Practically, a single pass conversion in a slurry phase FT-reactor
should be around 90 % so that no recycling is necessary. For such a high conversion, it is
necessary to keep the superficial gas flow below 0.3 m/s.
Fig. 35. FischerTropsch reactor simulation results: syngas conversion [Maretto and Krishna, 1999].
82
Fig. 36. FischerTropsch reactor simulation results: total reactor productivity (column diameter D
T
=7 m;
dispersion height H=30 m) [Maretto and Krishna, 1999].
Increasing the catalyst concentration in the slurry,
cat,L
(or
s
in Figure 36), of course
increases both conversion and productivity, but the influence of
cat,L
is not only because of
the increasing number of active catalyst sites, but also due to its reducing effect on the total
gas hold-up. So, increasing the
cat,L
leads to lower
G
and hence higher slurry hold-up,
L
,
which in turn means that more catalyst can be loaded into the reactor. The higher the
productivity, the higher the number of cooling tubes needed (Figure 37).
Fig. 37. FischerTropsch reactor simulation results: number of 50-mm-diameter cooling tubes [Maretto and
Krishna, 1999].
A sensitivity analysis was also performed to investigate the effect of the mass transfer
coefficient from gas to liquid, and the effect of the Yates-Satterfield kinetic constant a, on the
overall productivity. The superficial gas velocity, u
sG
, was set to 0.4 m/s and the catalyst
concentration in the slurry to
cat,L
= 0.25. A 10-fold increase or 3-fold reduction of k
L
a as
compared with the base case, had a negligible effect on the productivity. However, doubling
the kinetic constant a resulted in a 60 % increase of the productivity. Hence, it was concluded
that the slurry phase reactor at this base case is kinetically controlled.
83
5. Conclusion/discussion
It seems common for the few models describing FT in fixed-beds (trickle-beds) not to
consider the liquid as a separate phase. This is probably since the liquid essentially just is
existing as a thin film around the catalyst pellets, and hence the gas phase can be seen as the
continuous phase, and the liquid external hold-up,
L
, is practically zero. One could of course
include the liquid phase in the model, as would be the case for other gas/liquid/solid systems
such as slurry reactors or more conventional trickle bed reactors (such as used in the
hydrotreatment of oils) in which the liquid hold-up is much larger and also the liquid flow.
The simplification with no separate liquid phase, in the case of the model by Wang et al.
[2003] who used true intrinsic kinetic rate expressions, is justified if the existence of the
liquid film around the pellets does not affect the overall rate, i.e. if no interfacial gradients
occur between gas and gas/liquid interface, and gas/liquid interface and liquid, and between
liquid and solid. Wang et al. [2003] did account for temperature gradients in a gas film around
the pellets. If mass transfer restrictions in the liquid film around the pellets can be neglected,
there is no need to find the interfacial areas, a
v
and a
v
, which otherwise seem rather
troublesome to find especially if the catalyst pellets are not completely wetted by the liquid.
The models described above developed by Wang et al. [2003] and Jess et al. [1999] did not
explain how the product yield was calculated. Probably, a material balance over the whole
reactor is needed since no liquid phase is accounted for, and the wax composition is assumed
to be constant, and hence cannot describe the proper product distribution.
In all models presented here, the composition of the wax is assumed to be constant. In order
to develop a model able to predict the performance of a wide range of conditions, the model
should be able to predict the composition of the wax phase. The composition of the wax
determines D
ei
inside the pores and also the concentrations of components at the gas/liquid
interface at the pore mouths. Maybe, it would be possible to solve such a problem iteratively,
by guessing a composition of the wax, and then integrate the gas phase over the reactor in
order to get a new guess value for the composition. For each composition of the wax, the
equilibrium values for gas-phase concentration and liquid-phase concentration of reactants
and products would be different. In a real FT-trickle-bed, the composition of the wax would
vary along the reactor, and, maybe more important, the thickness of the liquid film will
increase downwards the reactor. Another approach would be to assume that the wax
composition in a z-point is given by the selectivity in that point. In this case, of course the
selectivity is not constant in the reactor, but varies with for instance H
2
/CO ratio at catalyst
surface, as suggested by Wang et al. [2001].
The fact that the catalyst pores are filled with liquid wax, and that diffusion through wax is
much slower than diffusion through gas, leads to the choice of making a heterogeneous model
to account for interfacial and intraparticle gradients. This could have been made with an
effectiveness factor instead of solving the particle equations. However, such a model would
not be able to predict the product selectivity with a high accuracy outside the conditions used
for building the model, since the selectivity is very much dependent on the H
2
/CO ratio at the
active site on the internal catalyst surface. Only by solving the particle mass balance the true
H
2
/CO ratio at the active site can be predicted.
The complexity of the FT synthesis regarding the broad product distribution makes it
desirable to simplify the model equations most often by choosing a 1-dimensional model, and
84
also to treat the liquid and catalyst as a pseudo-homogeneous phase. It also seems to be
common only to consider the mass balances for the reactants.
85
References
Aasberg-Petersen, K., Christensen, T., Nielsen, C., Dybkjaer, I., Recent developments in
autothermal reforming and pre-reforming for synthesis gas production in GTL applications,
Fuel. Proc. Tech., 2003, 83, 253-261
Bharadwaj, S., Schmidt, L., Catalytic partial oxidation of natural gas to syngas, Fuel. Proc.
Tech., 1995, 42, 109-127
Biesheuvel, P., Kramer, G., Two-section reactor model for autothermal reforming of methane
to synthesis gas, AIChe Journal, 2003, 49, 1827-1837
Bjrgum, E., researcher at SINTEF, Trondheim, personal communication April 2006
Bub, G., Baerns, M., Bussemeier, B., Frohning, C., Prediction of the performance of catalytic
fixed bed reactors for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Chem. Eng. Sci., 1980, 35, 348-355
De Groote, A., Froment, G., Simulation of the catalytic partial oxidation of methane to
synthesis gas, Appl. Catal. A, 1996, 138, 245-264
Dry, M., Practical and theoretical aspects of the catalytic Fischer-Tropsch process, Appl.
Catal. A, 1996, 138, 319-344
Dry, M., The Fischer-Tropsch process: 1950-2000, Catal. Today, 2002, 71, 227-241
Dybkjaer, I., Tubular reforming and autothermal reforming of natural gas an overview of
available processes, Fuel. Proc. Tech., 1995, 42, 85-107
Ekbom, T., Berglin, N., Lgdberg, S., Black Liquor Gasification with Motor Fuel Production
BLGMF II A techno-economic feasibility study of catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis for
synthetic diesel production in comparison with methanol and DME as transport fuels, project
report for contract P13284-1 in the Swedish Energy Agencys program Forsknings och
utvecklingsprogrammet fr alternativa drivmedel 2003 - 2006 (FALT), 2005 (The report is
available at www.nykomb.se)
Espinoza, R., Steynberg, A., Jager, B., Vosloo, A., Low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis from a Sasol perspective, Appl. Catal. A, 1999, 186, 13-26
Fogler, H. S., Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3
rd
ed., Prentice-Hall
International, United States of America, 1999
Froment, G., Bischoff, K., Chemical reactor analysis and design, 2
nd
ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., United States of America, 1990
Gianetto, A., Silveston, P., Multiphase chemical reactors: theory, design, scale-up,
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, United States of America, 1986
86
Godfrey, K., Shackcloth, B., Dynamic modeling of a steam reformer and the implementation
of feedforward/feeback control, Measurement and Control, 1970, 3, T65-T72
Hoang, D., Chan, S., Modeling of a catalytic autothermal methane reformer for fuel cell
applications, Appl. Catal. A, 2004, 268, 207-216
Huang, X., Varma, A., McCready, M., Heat transfer characterization of gas-liquid flows in a
trickle-bed, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2004, 59, 3767-3776
Jakobsen, H., professor at Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU), personal communication, 2006-03
Jakobsen, H., Fixed Bed Reactors, lecture notes in subject: SIK2053, Reactor Technology,
spring 2003, Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), 2003
Jess, A., Popp, R., Hedden, K., Fischer-Tropsch-synthesis with nitrogen-rich syngas
fundamentals and reactor design aspects, Appl. Catal. A, 1999, 186, 321-342
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 13, 4
th
ed., John Wiley & Sons,
USA, 1995
Krishna, R., Sie, S., Design and scale-up of the Fischer-Tropsch bubble column slurry
reactor, Fuel Proc. Tech., 2000, 64, 73-105
Ldeng, R., researcher at SINTEF, Trondheim, personal communication April 2006
Lgdberg, S., Modeling of trickle-bed reactors The Fischer-Tropsch reaction, examination
assignment in TKP 4145 Reaktorteknologi at NTNU, Trondheim, spring 2006
Maretto, C., Krishna, R., Modelling of a bubble column slurry reactor for Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis, Catal. Today, 1999, 52, 279-289
Moulijn, J., Makkee, M., van Diepen, A., Chemical Process Technology, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, England, 2001
Ochoa Fernandz, E., Rusten, H., Jakobsen, H., Rnning, M., Holmen, A., Chen, D., Sorption
enhanced hydrogen production by steam methane reforming using Li
2
ZrO
3
as sorbent:
sorption kinetics and reactor simulation, Catal. Today, 2005, 106, 41-46
Rydn, M., PhD student at Chalmers, Gothenburg, Sweden, personal communication March
2006
Schulz, H., Short history and present trends of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Appl. Catal. A,
1999, 186, 3-12
87
Shah, Y., Gas-Liquid-Solid Reactor Design, McGraw-Hill Inc., United States of America,
1979
Shah, Y., Sharma, M., Gas-Liquid-Solid Reactors, Ch. 10 in Chemical reaction and reactor
engineering, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1987
Sie, S., Krishna, R., Fundamentals and selection of advanced Fischer-Tropsch reactors,
Appl. Catal. A, 1999, 186, 55-70
Stehlik, P., Mathematical model of a steam-reforming radiation chamber - V. Effect of
selected parameters on the main characteristics values of the process, Chemicky Prumysl,
1991, 41, 23-28
Ullmans Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Volume A 12, 5
th
ed., VCH, Germany 1989
Wang, Y., Li, Y., Bai, L., Zhao, Y., Zhang, B., Correlation for gas-liquid equilibrium
prediction in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Fuel, 1999, 78, 911-917
Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Xiang, H., Li, Y., Zhang, B., Modeling of catalyst pellets for Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2001, 40, 4324-4335
Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, B., Heterogeneous modeling for fixed-bed
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: Reactor model and its applications, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2003, 58,
867-875
Wender, I., Reactions of synthesis gas, Fuel Processing Technology, 1996, 48, 189-297
Wilhelm, D., Simbeck, D., Karp, A., Dickenson, R., Syngas production for gas-to-liquids
applications: technologies, issues and outlook, Fuel Proc. Tech., 2001, 71, 139-148
Williams, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Oral presentation by Rachid Oukaci at the 2
nd
Annual
Global GTL Summit Executive Briefing, May 28-30, 2002, London, UK.