See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26498529

Modeling and simulation of methanation catalytic reactor in ammonia unit

Article in Petroleum and Coal · January 2007

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

20 3,407

4 authors, including:

Mahdi Ahmadi Marvast Madjid Kakavand

Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI) Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
47 PUBLICATIONS 386 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahdi Ahmadi Marvast on 15 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P
Peeetttrrrooollleeeuuum
P m&
m &C
& Coooaaalll
C
IISSN 1337-7027

Available online at www.vurup.sk/pc

Petroleum & Coal 49 (1), 46-53, 2007

MODELING AND SIMULATION OF METHANATION

CATALYTIC REACTOR IN AMMONIA UNIT
Kayvan Khorsand*, Mehdi A. Marvast, Narges Pooladian, Madjid
Kakavand, *corresponding author

Research Institute of Petroleum Industry(RIPI)

Tehran, Iran, P.O. Box: 18745-4163
Received December 4, 2006; accepted June 25 , 2007

Abstract
In ammonia synthesis units the amount of CO and CO2 shall be minimized as they are considered as
poisons for the related catalysts. To achieve this, methanation catalytic reactor is incorporated after the
high and low temperature shift reactor to decrease the concentration of carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide to an allowable limit.
The nature of the reactions taken place in methanation catalytic reactor is similar to that of steam
reforming one. So the reaction kinetic is somehow known but the important point is the approach
incorporated to measure the effectiveness factor of catalytic reactions. In this paper the influence
coefficient has been measured using Orthogonal Collocation approach. The system equation set has
been solved using the general available approaches.
The results taken from simulation show a good compatibility with the available industrial data in
Khorasan petrochemical complex.

Keywords: Methanation, Modeling, Simulation, Catalytic Reactor, Effectiveness factor

1. Introduction

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are considered as catalyst poisons in lots of
hydrogenation processes such as ammonia production. So in ammonia production units as
well as other hydrogen production units, after adsorption of carbon dioxide, the amount of the
residual carbon oxides shall be decreased as much as possible. In an ammonia unit,
methanation is the last step of purgation. In this section the concentration of carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide is 0.1 to 0.5 percent, which will be purged using catalytic reaction with
hydrogen. The concentration of residual carbon oxides in outgoing gas of the methanation
reactor will be less that 5 ppm .
Methanation is a catalytic reaction from kinetic point of view and adiabatic considering its
thermal characteristics. So in simulation of this reactor, the mathematical model includes the
kinetics of the reactions carried out on the catalyst. Also considering penetration of reactor
gases to internal surface of the catalyst, the mass transfer issues will be very important. In
this paper, kinetic and mass transfer relations have been incorporated in simulation to yield
proper results.

2. Modeling of Methanation Reactor

[1,2,3,4]
2. 1 Reaction Kinetics

The following assumptions have been considered in modeling of the reactor:

1. Gas mixture is considered ideal
2. System is in steady state condition
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 47

3. Relations of mass transfer, temperature, and momentum are assumed to be one-

dimensional. Also distribution of concentration, heat and pressure is uniform in each cross
section of the reactor.
4. Axial mass and heat transfer are assumed to be negligible.
Researches show that among the 11 equations outlined in table 1, the following thee primary
equations play substantial role:
CO + 3H2 ↔ CH 4 + H2O (1)
CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2 (2)
CO2 + 4H2 ↔ CH 4 + 2H2O (3)
In fact the above equations are the reverse of steam reforming reactions.

Table-1: Probable reactions in methanation reactor [5]

No Reactions Δ H 2 9 8 ,k g /m o l
1 CO + 3H 2 ↔ CH 4 + H 2 O -206.1
2 CO + H 2 O ↔ CO2 + H 2 41.15
3 CO2 + 4 H 2 ↔ CH 4 + 2 H 2 O -165
4 CH 4 + CO2 ↔ +2CO + 2 H 2 -247.3
5 CH 4 + 3CO2 ↔ +4CO + 2 H 2 O -330
6 CH 4 ↔ C + 2H 2 -74.82
7 2CO ↔ C + CO2 -173.3
8 CO + H 2 ↔ C + H 2 O 131.3
9 CO2 + H 2 ↔ C + 2 H 2 O 90.13
10 CH 4 + 2CO ↔ 3C + 2 H 2 O 187.6
11 CH 4 + CO2 ↔ 2C + 2 H 2 O 15.3

Considering the Xu & Froment kinetic [5], reaction rate equations 1 to 3 are as follow:
For reaction 1: r = k1 ⎛⎜ P P − PH PCO ⎞⎟ /(DEN )2
3
2
1 2.5 ⎜ H O CH ⎟
PH2 ⎝
2 4
K1
⎠
For reaction 2: k2 ⎛ PH2 PCO2 ⎞
r2 = ⎜ PCO PH2o − ⎟ /(DEN )
2

PH2 ⎝ K2 ⎠

For reaction 3: r = k3 ⎡ PH42 PC O 2 ⎤

⎢ PC H 4 PH 2O − ⎥
2

PH32.5 ( D E N )
3 2
⎣⎢ K 1K 2 ⎥⎦
In which
DEN = 1 + K CO PCO + K H 2 PH 2 + K CH 4 PCH 4 + K H 2O PH 2O / PH 2
⎧rCO = r1 − r2
⎪
For steam reforming: ⎨rCO2 = r2 + r3 (4)
⎪
⎩rCH 4 = r1 + r 3
⎧rCO
′ = r2 − r1
⎪
′ 2 = −(r2 + r3 )
For methanation: ⎨rCO (5)
⎪ ′
⎩rCH 4 = −(r1 + r 3 )
Rate constants of the above equations are defined as functions of temperature [5,6]:
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 48

⎛ 28879.0 ⎞ kmol.kPa
0.5
k1 = 9.490 × 1016 exp⎜ − ⎟
⎝ T ⎠ kg.h
−1
⎛ 8074.3 ⎞ kmol.kPa
k 2 = 4.390 × 10 4 exp⎜ − ⎟ (6)
⎝ T ⎠ kg.h
⎛ 29336.0 ⎞ kmol.kPa
0.5
k 3 = 2.290 × 1016 exp⎜ − ⎟
⎝ T ⎠ kg.h
K CO , K CH 4 , K H 2 And K H 2O are the constants which related to surface adsorption in
equilibrium that are functions of temperature. The functions types are given in the
references[6].
The equilibrium constants of reactions 1-3 are defined as below:
⎛ 26830.0 ⎞
K1 = 10266.76 × exp⎜ − + 30.11⎟ ; kPa 2
⎝ T ⎠
⎛ 4400.0 ⎞
K 2 = exp⎜ − 4.063 ⎟ (7)
⎝ T ⎠
K 3 = K1K 2 ; kPa 2

2. 2 Mass, Energy and Momentum Balance Equations [5,6,7]

Before modeling of the reactor, equilibrium constraints on considered system have to be

considered. For instance the process is exothermal and increase of temperature will reduce
the conversion rate.
Considering that two of the three main reactions are independent from each other, by
definition of two corresponding variables, by means of the conversion rate, it is possible to
determine all the concentration variables.

FCH 4 , 0 − FCH 4
X CH 4 = (8)
FCH 4 , 0
FCO2 − FCO2 , 0
X CO2 = (9)
FCH 4 , 0

With the above definitions, it will be possible to drive all the model’s flow rates in terms of
X CO2 and X CH 4 . For example the molar flow rate of methane FCH 4 will be as follows:

FCH 4 = FCH 4 , 0 (1 − X CH 4 ) (10)

Hence, partial pressures are defined based on the components molar flow rates:

⎡ FH O − FCH 4 , 0 ( X CH 4 + X CO2 ⎤
PH 2O = Pt ⎢ 2 , 0 ⎥ (11)
⎢⎣ Ftotal, 0 + 2 FCH 4, 0 X CH 4 ⎥⎦
(
⎡ FCH 4 , 0 1 − X CH 4 ⎤ )
PCH 4 = Pt ⎢ ⎥ (12)
⎢⎣ Ftotal, 0 + 2 FCH 4 , 0 X CH 4 ⎥⎦
⎡ FH + FCH 4 , 0 (3 X CH 4 + X CO2 ) ⎤
PH 2 = Pt ⎢ 2 , 0 ⎥ (13)
⎢⎣ Ftotal, 0 + 2 FCH 4 , 0 X CH 4 ⎥⎦
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 49

⎡ FCH 4 , 0 (3 X CH 4 + X CO2 ) ⎤
PCO = Pt ⎢ ⎥ (14)
⎣⎢ Ftotal, 0 + 2 FCH 4 , 0 X CH 4 ⎦⎥
Substituting of the above partial pressure equations of feed and product in reaction rate
equations will cause the rate equations to be in terms of conversion rate variables. Now it will
be possible to derive the balance equations.
Mass balance equations for CH 4 and CO 2 are as follow:

dFCH 4
= πρ B (+ηr1 + η 3 r3 ) (15)
dZ
dFCO2
= −πρ B (+η 2 r 2 + η3r3 ) (16)
dZ

In which z is the length of the reactor ( m ), π is the cross section of the reactor ( m 2 ), ρ B is
kg
the catalyst mass density ( m 3 ) and η1 ,η 2 ,η 3 are Effectiveness Factors of the reaction.

kgmol
r1 , r2 , r3 are reaction rates ( ) in absence of penetration constraints.
kg catalyst.hr
Substitution of molar flow with conversion variables yields:

dX CH 4 − πρ B (η1r1 + η3r3 )
= (17)
dZ FCH 4 , 0
dX CO2 − πρ B (η 2 r2 + η3r3 )
= (18)
dZ FCH 4 , 0

Energy balance equation, with considering that the reactor is adiabatic, simultaneously solved
with equations 17 and 18:

dT
=
1
[ρ B ((−ΔH 1 )η1r1 + (−ΔH 2 )η 2 r2 + (−ΔH 3 )r3η 3 )] (19)
dz ρ g C ρ g u s

In which ρg is the density of gas mixture and u s is its artificial speed inside reactor.
Momentum balance equation, which yields pressure drop along the reactor, is as follows:

dPt ρ g us 2

=−f (20)
dz dp

In which dp is the equivalent diameter of the catalyst particle. To determine friction coefficient
f , experimental and semi-experimental relations are used.
The artificial speed can be determined by means of continuity equation:

⎛ P ⎞⎛ T ⎞⎛ Ftotal, 0 + 2 FCH 4 , 0 X CH 4 ⎞⎟
u s = u so ⎜⎜ t ,0 ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ (21)
⎝ Pt ⎠⎝ To ⎠⎜⎝ Ftotal, 0 ⎟
⎠
Inlet flow speed u so can be calculated using molar flow rate and input temperature and
pressure conditions:
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 50

Ftotal, 0 ⎛ RTo ⎞
u s ,0 = ⎜ ⎟ (22)
π ⎜⎝ Pt , 0 ⎟
⎠
Boundary conditions for balance equations (17-20) are as below:
X CH 4 = 0, X CO2 = 0, T = T0 , Pt = Pt , 0 at z=0 (23)
The set of equations with the mentioned boundary conditions are solved using Matlab
software.

3. Calculation of Reaction Effectiveness Factor [5,8]

Mass transfer or penetration resistances against the reaction materials, play important
roles in the results obtained from modeling of catalytic reactions. So to modify the kinetic
behavior of reaction rate equations, Effectiveness Factor is defined.
In achieved modeling, the effectiveness factors can be calculated by definition of
penetration equations in radial direction of the catalyst.
Continuity equations for CH 4 and CO 2 in an spherical element is as follows:

⎞
1 d ⎛ 2 dPCH 4
De ,CH 4 × . ⎜r ⎟ + ρ g RT (r1 + r3 ) = 0 (24)
r 2 dr ⎜⎝ ⎟
dr ⎠
1 d ⎛ dPCO2 ⎞
De,CO2 × 2 . ⎜⎜ r 2 ⎟ − ρ g RT (r2 + r3 ) = 0 (25)
r dr ⎝ dr ⎟⎠

In which De , CH 4 is the effective penetration coefficient in component i. Catalyst particle

has been considered to be isothermal and it is assumed that there isn’t any heat transfer from
the catalyst particle to the outside. The obtained equations shall be solved in every radial
position of the reactor with the assigned boundary conditions. Having partial pressures of
CH 4 and CO 2 , concentrations of other components could be obtained by means of
stoichiometry. Xu & Froment has used a similar model for determination of effective
penetration factor. The boundary conditions for dimensionless catalytic particle equations are
as below:

dPCH 4 dPCO2
= = 0 at ζ = 0 (26)
dζ dζ
PCH 4 = PCH 4 , B = PCO2 = PCO , B at ζ = 1 (27)

In which ζ is the dimensionless radius of the catalyst particle, PCH 4 , PCO2 are local
partial pressures in catalyst and PCH 4 , B , PCO2 , B show the partial pressures in the fluid outside
the particle. As the catalyst is assumed to be isothermal, there will be no energy balance
equation satisfied for that and the reaction rate will be determined in fluid temperature. Also
partial differential equations 26 and 27 have been derived by differential approximation.
These equations are converted to a set of algebraic equations, which have been solved by
Newton method. Because of the complexity of reaction rate equations, jacopian numerical
method has been incorporated instead of analytical method. When effectiveness factor
equations are solved, then the balance equations of the reactor will be also solvable.

3. 1 Simulation Results

Reactor dimensions, catalyst specifications, operating conditions and concentration of

the reactor input components adopted from available documents of methanation reactor of
[9]
Khorasan Petrochemical Complex Ammonia Unit. It has been given in table (2) . Simulation
results and input/output data of the industrial reactor has been compared in table (3).
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 51

Table-2: Methanation reactor design and operation specifications [9].

Dimensions
length of methanator 4.8 m
inside diameter of the methanator 2.686 m
The Catalyst pellet
Shape spherical particles
Diameter 0.00494-0.00476 m
Porosity 0.625
Tortuosity factor 2.74
Bulk density 1014 kg/m3
Catalyst length 0.0010583 m
Mean pore radius 8000 A°
Inlet conditions design actual

Feed flow rate, kmol/hr 3392.288 3298.251

Methane flow rate, kmol/hr 16.557 13523
Temperature, K 586.30 577.78
Pressure, kPa 2074.75 1823.82
Composition, Mol%
Design Actual
CO 0.4280 0.1600
CO2 0.0500 0
H2 74.052 73.410
CH4 0.488 0.41
H2O 0.483 0.120
Inerts 24.499 25.9

In figures 1 and 2, distribution of methane and carbon dioxide concentration along the
reactor has been illustrated. As expected, it shows decrease of the carbon dioxide while
increase of methane along the reactor. Molar flow rates of the outlet components show a
good compatibility with the output data of the available industrial reactor. This matter is also
satisfied for the temperature and pressure conditions. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate temperature
and pressure distribution along the reactor catalytic bed. Because of absence of industrial
data along the bed, there is only the output data, which could be comparable. These figures
show good compatibility with the industrial data.

Table-3: Simulation Results and Industrial Methanation Reactor Data [9].

Input Output
Industrial Simulation Industrial
CO, kmol/hr 20.5 0 0.0
CO2, kmol/hr 3.4 0 0.0
H2, kmol/hr 4186.7 4407.53 4111.5
CH4, kmol/hr 26.1 55.61 50.1
H2O kmol/hr 58.0 92.12 85.3
Inerts, kmol/hr 16.6 16.6 16.6

In table 4 the error percentage of the simulation have been given.

Table-4: Comparison of simulation data with those of the industrial data

Actual Simulation Error%
CO2 mol% 0 0 0
CH4 mol% 0.012 0.0132 10%
Tout ,K 589 598 1.5%
Pout , bar 29.2 29.381 0.6%
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 52

Fig-1: Methane concentration along the bed Fig-2: Carbon Dioxide concentration along
the reactor

Fig-3: Temperature variation along the Fig-4: Pressure variation along the reactor
reactor

4. Conclusions

The achieved simulation shows that penetration constraints of the feed gases play an
important role in control of the reaction rate. Considering the effects of the mass transfer
resistances in reaction kinetics, called effectiveness factor, considerable results have been
obtained which show quite a good compatibility with the industrial data. This is turn satisfies
the simulation which has been done for the methanation reactor.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the fully collaborations by Khorasan petrochemical complex to disposal of

industrial data within this investigation.

Nomenclature

C p : Heat capacity f : Fraction coefficient

De : Effective penetration K : Equilibrium constant
k : Reaction constant
dp : Equivalent particle diameter P : Pressure
F : Molar flow R : Gas constant
 Kayvan Khorsand et al./Petroleum & Coal 49(1) 46-53 (2007) 53

T : Temperature
u s : Artificial aped π : Reactor cross-section area
ρ : Density
X : Conversion η : Effectiveness factor
z : Reactor length
ξ : Dimensionless radius of particle
Greek letters

5. References

[1] D.W.Allen, E.R. Gerhard, and M.R. Likins, “ Kinetics of methan-Steam reaction”, Ind. Eng.
Chem. P.D.D., 14,3, 256, 1975.
[2] J. R. H. Ross, and M. C. F. Steel, “ Mechanism of the steam reforming of methane over a
coprecipitated nickel-alumina catalyst”, J. Chem. Soc., Farad. Trans., 1, 1, 10, 1973.
[3] A. H. zhang, J. Zhu and W.H. Duan, “ CO methanation on Ni(1 1 1) and modified Ni3Al(1 1 1)
surface: A first-principle study”, Surface Science, 3 Nov,2006.
[4] M. B. I. Choudhury, S.Ahmed, M.A. Shalabi and T. Inui, “ Preferential methanation of CO in a
syngas involving CO2 at lower temperature range”, App. Catal. A, Vol 314, Iss 1, 47, 2006.
[5] J. Xu, G.F. Froment, “Methane Steam Reforming, Methanation and Water-Gas shift Intrinsic
Kinetics”, AIChE , vol. 1, No. 1,1989.
[6] S. S. E.H. Elnashaie and S.S. Elshishini, “ Modeling, Simulation and Optimization of Industrial
Fixed Bed Catalytic Reactors”, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, vol. 7, 1993.
[7] M. V. Twigg, Catalyst Handbook, Wolfe Publishing Ltd, Second Edition, 1989.
[8] M. S. Batista, E. I. Santiago, E. M. Assaf and E. A. Ticianelli, “Evaluation of the water-gas shift
and CO methanation processes for purification of reformate gases and the coupling to a PEM
fuel cell system”, J. Power Sources, 145, 1, 50, 2005.
[9] Khorasan Petrochemical Complex Documents, Ammonia Unit, Industrial Data.

View publication stats