Development of a Model for Packed-Foam Fischer-Tropsch

Reactors and Optimization through Artificial Neural Networks

Advisor: Prof. Enrico Tronconi Master of Science Thesis of :

Co-Advisor: Laura Fratalocchi, Ph.D. Mohamad Abou Daher, 1060121
Prof. Gianpiero Groppi
Tommaso Selleri, PhD
 Introduction

• 50% increase in energy demand (2018-2050) due to population and economic

growth
• Liquid fuels would still account for 30% of global energy consumption
• This is also accompanied with increase in environmental awareness and demand
for cleaner fuels

Mohamad Abou Daher

2
 Introduction

GtL Processes:
• Monetize stranded gas resources
• Reduce flaring of associated gas resource
• Convert gas into easily transporatable and clean liquid fuel
FTS:
• Converts syngas to wide range of products over a metal-based catalyst
• highly exothermic process

Mohamad Abou Daher

3
 Introduction

FTS is highly capital-intensive process as it requires

proper thermal management in huge reactors.

Need to scale down the process:

• MTFBR (High P-drop)
• SBCR (Hydrodynamics)

LCCP proposed packed foam as an

alternative for process intensification

Mohamad Abou Daher

4
 Introduction

Parameter Value Dimension

Ε 0.38 -
0.906 -

L 4 cm
2.78 cm

200 W/m/k

630

300

2 mm

GHSV 6400

P 25 bar
0.5158 -

0.2492 -

0.235 -

Mohamad Abou Daher

5
 Introduction

Mohamad Abou Daher

6
 Packed Foam Model

Inlet
 Steady State
2D-cylindrical coordinates
Inert
Continuity between reaction zone & inert part
Ignore liquid phase
2 phases: pseudo-fluid + foam
Reactive Gaseous Species:
Mass Balances: 5 in fluid
Energy Balances: balance for fluid and foam
Momentum Balance (P-drop) [Pa];
Inert
And
Outlet

Mohamad Abou Daher

7
 Packed Foam Model

 • Metallic foam considered to be inert

• Material Balance (pseudo phase):

Such that

• Lumped reaction scheme

Y.S. expression

where: [], Ea=76.26 [kJ/mol] and

T=[200-240

Mohamad Abou Daher

8
 Packed Foam Model

 
• Energy Balance (fluid phase):
]
Such that
• Where the reaction enthalpy was estimated locally for each set of product selectivities

Heat of Rxn vs Temp

-140
∆ Hfts[kJ/mol]

-150

-160

-170

-180
450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520
Temperature [K]
Mohamad Abou Daher
9
 Packed Foam Model

 Energy Balance (Metallic Foam):

• estimated based on the approximation of the foam as a set of parallel packed bed reactors with
diameter equal to the cell diameter

• Dixon’s correlation:

Mohamad Abou Daher

10
 Case Studies

Sensitivity to dcell in terms of Temperature profile at Tin=221.7C

240

235

All
  case studies are for:
230
T, C

225

220
1 mm
base
3 mm
215
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Length, cm

[mm] [] [] []

1 976.03 673.30 2238.42 0.442

2 491.73 382.87 1119.21 0.506

3 330.95 266.28 746.14 0.603

Mohamad Abou Daher

11
 Case Studies

Sensitivity to Ksolid in terms of Temperature profile at Tin=221.7C

238

236

234
Sensitivity to epsh in terms of Temperature profile at Tin=221.7C
240
232

230
235

T, C
228

226
230
224
T, C

222
100
225 220 base
400
218
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
220 Length, cm
epsh=0.85
base
epsh=0.95
215
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Length, cm
100 3.72 0.579
[] 200 7.44 0.506
400 14.89 0.478
0.85 1307.23 13 0.477
0.906 1119.21 7.44 0.506
0.95 852.24 3.67 0.601

Mohamad Abou Daher

12
 Case Studies

Sensitivity to hwall s olid in terms of Temperature profile at Tin=221.7C

230
Sensitivity to Uov in terms of Temperature profile at Tin=221.7C
230

228

228

226

226

T, C
224
T, C

224

222

222

220 80%hwall
base
220 80%Uov 120%hwall
base
120%Uov 218
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
218 Length, cm
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Length, cm

base

0.503 0.517 0.499 0.494 0.524

Mohamad Abou Daher

13
 Simulating Experimental data
Experimental vs simulated conversion values Experimental vs simulated temperature profiles
0.7 245
simulated
experimental
240
0.6
235

230
0.5
CO conversion [-]

Temperature, °C
225

0.4 220

215
0.3
210

205
0.2
simulated
200
experimental
0.1 195
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Toper, °C Length, cm
Experimental vs simulated conversion values
0.9 Experimental vs simulated temperature profiles
260
simulated
0.8 experimental

250
0.7
240
CO conversion [-]

0.6

Temperature, °C
230
0.5

220
0.4

0.3 210

0.2 simulated 200

experimental

0.1 190
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Toper, °C Length, cm

Mohamad Abou Daher

14
 Experimental vs simulated conversion values
0.7

Simulating Experimental data 0.6

0.5

CO conversion [-]
0.4

200 195.9 199.8 195.9

0.3

205 199.5 205 199.2

0.2
simulated
experimental
210 204.2 210.1 201.4
0.1
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
Toper, °C
215 208 214.5 203.6
Experimental vs simulated Hot spot Temperatures
245

220 213.7 219.4 205.5 240

235
225 216.5 224.3 206.4
230

Thotspot, °C
230 218.5 229.2 210 225

220
240 225 239 215
215

210
Variable Average Absolute Error [%]
205 simulated
experimental
Conversion 4.54 200
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
Toper, °C
Hotspot Temperature [C] 0.23
Experimental vs simulated temperature profiles
245 simulated

8.662 240
experimental

235
4.22 230
Temperature, °C

225
2.19
220

215

Possibility of : 210

205

Different heating zones 200

Heat dissipation in the tube 195

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Length, cm
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Mohamad Abou Daher

15
 Experimental vs simulated conversion values
0.7

Simulating Experimental Data 0.6

Fitted T profiles 0.5

CO conversion [-]
245
Toper=200
Toper=205 0.4
240
Toper=210
Toper=215
235 0.3
Toper=220
Toper=225
230 Toper=230 0.2
simulated
Temperature, °C

Toper=240 experimental
225
0.1
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
220 Toper, °C
Experimental vs simulated Hot spot Temperatures
245

215 240

235
210
230
205

Thotspot, °C
225

200 220

215
195
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 210
Length, cm
205 simulated
experimental
200
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
Toper, °C

Experimental vs simulated temperature profiles

Variable Average Absolute Error [%] 245
simulated
experimental
240

Conversion 4.54 235

230
Hotspot Temperature [C] 0.23
Temperature, °C

225

8.662 220

215
4.22
210

2.19 205

200

195
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Length, cm

Mohamad Abou Daher

16
 ANN model and process optimization

ELU function
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

f(x)
1
0.5
Cost function measures: NN performance in -4 -3 -2 -1
0
0 1 2 3
-0.5
approximating desired output data based on -1
input training set -1.5
x

Mohamad Abou Daher

17
 ANN model and process optimization

80% for training and 20% of data for cross validation

Through training you assign weights that minimize the cost function

𝑀𝑂
𝑁 𝐿 −1 𝑛𝑙+ 1 𝑛𝑙
1 𝑞 2 𝜆 𝑟𝑒𝑔
  𝑞 (𝑙) 2
𝐽 𝜃= ∑ ∑ (h 𝜃,𝑖 − 𝑦 𝑖 ) + ∑ ∑ ∑ (𝜃 𝑘𝑚)
2 𝑁 𝑖=1 𝑞=1 2 𝑁 𝑙=1 𝑘=1 𝑚=1
 Need to optimize the FNN parameters network architecture, and .

GA :”Survival of the fittest”, design three FNN for each output variable.

Mohamad Abou Daher

18
 ANN predicted SC5+
1
ANN model and process optimization 0.9

0.8

ANN
  used to predict and

ANN predicted values

0.7

, such that and 0.6

0.5

conditions: and .. 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Actual Values

ANN predicted conversion ANN predicted Th otspot

1 320

0.9
300
0.8

0.7 280
ANN predicted values

ANN predicted values

0.6
260
0.5

240
0.4

0.3
220

0.2
200
0.1

0 180
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Actual Values Actual Values

Mohamad Abou Daher

19
 Conclusion

• The developed mathematical model proves to be flexible and capable of simulating

various foam geometries.

• The model also was able to simulate conversion, hotspot temperature and

selectivities if appropriate wall temperature profiles are provided.

• Demonstrated ANN robust performance for wide range of conditions

Mohamad Abou Daher

20
 Future Work

• Assess the performance of open-cell foams with external skin.

• Adopt different reactor scheme

• ANN could be used to optimize foam parameters

Mohamad Abou Daher

21
 Thank You

Mohamad Abou Daher

22
 Backup Slides

Mohamad Abou Daher

23
 Boundary Conditions

 Boundary Conditions:
Axially @ ; ;
Axially @ ; ;
Radially @ ; ;

Radially @ ; ;
;

Mohamad Abou Daher

24
 Physical Properties

 Axial and radial effective mass diffusion coefficients [/s]

Wall heat Transfer coefficient [W//k]:

Mohamad Abou Daher

25
 Physical Properties

 Axial and Radial effective conductivity [w/m/k] both assumed equal

Mohamad Abou Daher

26
 Foam Parmeters

 Effective heat transfer in foam assumed uniform [W/m/k]

Wall heat transfer between wall and foam [W//k]

Mohamad Abou Daher

27
 Numerical Methods

 
Forward difference:
Central difference:
Backward difference:

Second Order derivative:

Mohamad Abou Daher

28
 Backpropagation
 

Mohamad Abou Daher

29
 GA

Mohamad Abou Daher

30