Professional Documents
Culture Documents
17741
SOLAR GASIFICATION OF
CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS
—
REACTOR DESIGN, MODELING
AND EXPERIMENTATION
A dissertation submitted to
ETH ZURICH
presented by
ANDREAS Z’GRAGGEN
Dipl. Masch.-Ing. ETH
born July 25, 1978
citizen of Schattdorf (UR)
2008
Abstract
phase formulation that couples radiative, convective, and conductive heat transfer
to the chemical kinetics for polydisperse suspensions of reacting particles. The gov-
erning mass and energy conservation equations are solved by applying advanced
Monte-Carlo and finite-volume techniques. Validation is accomplished by compar-
ing the numerically calculated temperatures, product compositions, and chemical
conversions with the experimentally measured values obtained from testing a 5 kW
prototype reactor.
The validated reactor model is then used to optimize the reactor’s geometrical
configuration and operational parameters (feedstock’s initial particle size, feeding
rates, and solar power input) for maximum reaction extent and solar-to-chemical
energy conversion efficiency of a 5 kW prototype reactor and its scale-up to 300 kW.
The advantageous volume-to-surface ratio of the 300 kW scaled-up reactor and its
enhanced insulation lead to a solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency of 24%.
Moreover, the increased cavity dimensions permit the use of a coarser feedstock to
be reacted efficiently. Finally, the tube-shaped cavity was found to outperform the
commonly employed barrel-shaped cavity, mainly because most of the particles are
directly exposed to the incoming high-flux solar radiation.
Riassunto
First of all, I thank Prof. Dr. Aldo Steinfeld for supervising my doctoral studies at
the Professorship in Renewable Energy Carriers, ETH Zurich. The excellent research
environment he provided, his confidence in my independent way of working as well
as his lasting support were essential to my work.
I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Michael F. Modest for critically reviewing this
manuscript and for acting as co-examiner.
The members of the Synpet project team deserve special acknowledgment. I
thank Dominic Trommer and Philipp Haueter for giving me insight in the fields of
chemical engineering and reactor design, respectively. I will keep in good memory
the weeks we spent struggling with our experimental setup. I am also indebted to
the technical staff at PSI for their support, they made the experimental campaigns
possible in the first place.
I thank all my colleagues and members of our research group. In particular,
my thanks go to Dr. Wojciech Lipiǹski and Dr. Jörg Petrasch for many fruitful
discussions on radiative transfer and numerical simulations. Hansmartin Friess
also deserves special thanks for his patient support in the development of the
gas-temperature measurement apparatus. I thank Dr. Thomas Osinga, Dr. Elena
Gálvez, Dr. Peter von Zedtwitz, Tom Melchior, Gilles Maag, Viktoria von Zedtwitz-
Nikulshyna, Patrick Coray, Sophia Haussener, Nic Piatkowski and Lothar Schunk
for providing an inspiring working environment.
Last, but no least, my very special thanks go to those close to my heart. My
parents Erwin and Susanna for igniting my curiosity and for giving me the belief
that everything is possible. Fabia for the daily royal treatment.
vi Acknowledgments
Contents
Abstract i
Riassunto iii
Acknowledgments v
Nomenclature xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Conventional Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Solar Thermochemistry and Solar Gasification in Particular . . . . . . 6
I Experimental Work 9
2 Feedstock 11
2.1 Petrozuata Delayed Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.1 Characterization of Coke-Water Slurries . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Petrozuata Vacuum Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Experimental Setup 19
3.1 Reactor Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Feedstock Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.1 Dry Powder Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.2 Slurry Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.3 Liquefied Vacuum Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Peripherals and Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Key Process Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
viii Contents
4 Results 33
4.1 Coke — Dry Powder Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Coke — Slurry Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3 Vacuum Residue — Liquefied Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
II Modeling 49
5 Simulation Framework 51
5.1 General Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.1 Incoming Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2 Reactor Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.1.3 Quartz Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.2 Polydisperse Coke Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2.1 Radiative Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3 Chemical Kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9 Conclusions 115
9.1 Experimental Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
9.2 Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9.3 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Bibliography 149
x Contents
Nomenclature
Acronyms
BC Boundary Condition
CCS CO2 Capture and Sequestration
CTL Coal to Liquids
CPC Compound Parabolic Concentrator
CCR Conradson Carbon Residue
ETH Eidgenössische technische Hochshule
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
FV Finite Volume
GCI Grid Convergence Index
LHV Lover Heating Value
PDF Probability Density Function
PSI Paul Scherrer Institut
RMS Root Mean Square
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
VR Vacuum Residue
Latin Characters
A window absorptance
Ci concentration of species i
cp specific heat capacity, J/(kg · K)
D particle diameter, m
Dc diffusion coefficient, m2 /s
E emitted/absorbed power in the MC solver
EA apparent activation energy
xii Nomenclature
Tr w window transmittance
t time, s
U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 · K)
u velocity, m/s
V volume, m3
V̇ volumetric flow rate, ln /min
XC carbon conversion
XH2 O steam conversion
x axial coordinate, m
Yi mass fraction of species i
yi molar fraction of species i
Greek Characters
Subscripts/Superscripts
0 initial
a absorbed
b blackbody
chem used by the chemical reaction
cond conduction
conv convection
g gaseous phase
i species
in inlet
rad radiative
rerad reradiation from the cavity
s solid phase
sk shrunk
T total
w window
λ spectral
Chapter 1
Introduction
Today’s energy sector is facing the important challenge of meeting the rising demand
for energy without increasing the emission of greenhouse gases and, in particular,
those of CO2 . This increasing demand, combined with the predicted decline in
conventional oil production in 10-20 years [78], can be met by increased utilization
of coal, whose reserves are estimated to last for 250 years [82]. With the increase in oil
prices also the cost- and energy-intensive extraction of oil shales and tar sands [85], as
well as inter-fuel substitution (coal-to-liquids and coal-to-gas technology, CTL) [47,
58] have gained in importance. Unfortunately, these technologies do not contribute
to the reduction of CO2 emission. Clean coal technologies, including CO2 capture
and sequestration (CCS) [49] and increased plant efficiency, i.e., the use of coal-fired
combined cycle processes (IGCC and PFBC) [75], are proposed as countermeasures
to mitigate the ecological drawbacks of a coal-based energy economy [15].
A higher potential in meeting the mentioned challenges altogether is attributed
to the substitution of fossil fuels by clean renewable fuels on one side [46, 22] and
the enhancement of material and energy efficiency on the other [45]. Typical sub-
stite fuels are, among others, fuels produced from biomass (biofuels) [35, 51] and
fuels produced by means of solar energy (solar fuels), typically hydrogen [93]. The
complete substitution is, if ever achievable, a long term goal. Nonetheless, mid term
goals aimed at the development of hybrid solar/fossil technologies are of strategic
importance to the creation of a transition path toward solar fuels.
An important example of such a hybrid solar/fossil process, in which fossil fuels
are used exclusively as the chemical source for H2 production and concentrated solar
power is used exclusively as the energy source of process heat, is the endothermic
2 1. Introduction
tal work (Chapters 2-4). The engineering design, the operation of such a reactor on
a solar furnace, the types and morphology of the employed feedstock and the ex-
perimental results are presented. Part II focuses on the modeling aspects (Chapters
5-8). Developed models were used to support the engineering design, to identify
parameters affecting the efficiency of the concept and to predict the performance of
the scaled-up reactor.
The characteristics and origin of the employed feedstock types are described
in Chapter 2. Elemental composition and particle size distributions are given for
Petrozuata Delayed Coke. Production and rheology of coke water slurry is shortly
addressed. Finally, the properties of vacuum residue are presented.
Chapter 3 focuses on the experimental setup used. The design of the cavity-
type reactor, the instrumentation and the outline of the concentrating facility are
described in detail. Furthermore, the key performance parameters of the process
are defined and their derivation and accuracy is discussed. These parameters are
the product gas composition, the energy efficiency, the chemical conversion and the
average reactant’s residence time in the cavity.
In Chapter 4 the results of three experimental campaigns are reported, each
one for a distinct feedstock: (1) Dry coke powder with steam fed separately (further
referred to as Campaign 1), (2) coke-water slurry injected into the cavity (Campaign
2) and (3) liquefied vacuum residue with steam fed separately (Campaign 3). Syngas
was successfully produced in all three campaigns. Differences in reactor performance
related to the feedstock type and injection system are addressed. Material from this
chapter has been published in [123, 122] and [121].
General consideration on the framework that supports the simulation models are
given in Chapter 5. The characteristics of the incoming radiation as well as the
conductive behavior of the reactor walls was determined by stand-alone preliminary
simulations. Wall and window radiative properties are presented. The concept of
‘equivalent monodisperse diameter’ is introduced to model the polydisperse feedstock
types, which have random size-distribution functions. Finally, the kinetic rate laws
for steam gasification of petcoke developed by Trommer [102] and employed in this
thesis are shortly presented.
In Chapter 6 a lumped parameters model — used for system analysis — is
described. It is used to support the early stages of the engineering design. The model
is validated with the experimental results. Good agreement is found especially for
the temperatures and carbon conversion rates of Campaign 1. Parameter studies
4 1. Introduction
disposal and conversion technology of residues from heavy crude oil processing. Con-
ventional gasification is also used in integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
plants fired with low or negative-valued feedstocks for clean and efficient electricity
production [58, 79].
In conventional gasification the energy required to heat the reactants and to
run the chemical reaction is either produced by partial oxidation of the feedstock
(autothermal gasifiers) or provided externally (allothermal gasifiers). Autothermal
gasification has the advantage that any losses associated with the heat transfer
are avoided and the construction of the gasifier is simplified. Furthermore, the
temperature can be adjusted quickly and accurately by regulation of the amount
of oxygen injected. On the other hand, allothermic gasification usually results in
higher-quality syngas, because the products are not contaminated by combustion
byproducts. Gasification reactors are divided into three groups depending on how
the solid fuel is brought into contact with the gasification agent: fixed/moving bed,
fluidized bed or entrained flow. The type of reactor influences the residence time, re-
actor temperature and pressure, and certain characteristics of the produced gas. For
this reason each reactor type is suited for a specific type, rank, and size distribution
of solid feedstock.
Fixed/moving bed gasifiers contain a bed of lump fuel supported by a grate and
maintained at a constant height. The feedstock is fed from the top end and flows
countercurrent to the rising gas stream. A single particle moving through the bed
passes different zones including drying and preheating, devolatilization, gasification,
oxidation, and ash removal. Fixed bed gasification systems are simple, reliable and
offer high efficiency with respect to feedstock and energy consumption. Outlet gas
temperature are in the range 425–650 ◦ C, feedstock size is between 6 and 50 mm. As
a consequence of the moderate temperatures the product gas contains around 10%
hydrocarbons, mostly CH4 . A typical example of a commercial fixed bed gasifier is
the dry ash Lurgi gasifier [76, 37]. Lurgi gasifiers were employed on a large scale for
South Africa’s SASOL complex [21].
Fluidized bed gasifiers accept feedstock as grains with a size in the range 6 to
10 mm. The solid feedstock is suspended on upward-blowing jets of the gasification
agent. The result is turbulent mixing of gas and solids. The tumbling action, much
like a bubbling fluid, provides more effective chemical reactions and heat transfer.
Reactors of this type are characterized by outlet gas temperatures in the range 900 to
1050 ◦ C, a high specific gasification rate and product uniformity. A typical example
6 1. Introduction
others by [27] and [54]. An alternative way to produce hydrogen by direct thermal
splitting is the decomposition of H2 S, a highly toxic industrial byproduct recovered
in the sweetening of natural gas and in the removal of organically-bound sulfur
from petroleum and coal. The process runs at temperatures around 1800 K on a
Al2 O3 surface. Separation of the products H2 and S2 occurs by condensation and
subsequent solidification of the sulfur [48].
In order to reduce the reaction temperature and eliminate the need for high-
temperature gas separation, various processes for the production of hydrogen by
multi-step thermochemical water splitting cycles have been proposed — typically
two-step processes based on metallic redox systems. In the first step the metal oxide
is partly or completely reduced in a solar high-temperature endothermic reactor; in
the second step the product from the first step is oxidized with water in an exother-
mal reaction releasing hydrogen (hydrolysis reaction) closing the cycle. An overview
of the most considered redox pairs is given in the following. The Fe3 O4 /FeO cycle
was recently experimentally investigated by [16]. Complete thermal dissociation of
Fe3 O4 at 1973 K and 0.1 bar under inert atmosphere was reported, while up to
80% conversion at 850 K was obtained for the hydrolysis step. Systems based on
Mn3 O4 /MnO, Co3 O4 /CoO can be thermally decomposed in air at 1810 and 1175 K,
respectively. Unfortunately, the H2 yields obtained were only 0.002% and 4 · 10−7 %
at 900 K for Mn3 O4 /MnO and Co3 O4 /CoO, respectively. High H2 yield of 99.7% at
900 K was obtained for Nb2 O5 /NbO2 , but the thermal decomposition temperature
of 3600 K in air is prohibitively high [62]. Extensive research has been performed on
the ZnO/Zn cycle. Latest results for direct thermal dissociation of ZnO are reported
by [89]. The in-situ formation and hydrolysis of Zn nanoparticles was investigated
by [23]. The issues arising from the high temperatures required for the direct ther-
mal dissociation of ZnO (approx. 2000 K at 1 bar) are mitigated by the addition
of carbon to the feedstock at the expense of CO2 emissions. Solar carbo-thermal
reduction of ZnO was successfully demonstrated at a power level of 10 kW [70] and
at 300 kW [115]. The produced zinc was reported to be significantly more reac-
tive in the hydrolysis step than commercially available material [107]. Finally, a
three-step sulfur-iodine cycle is proposed by [81], in which sulphuric acid is split by
concentrated solar radiation.
The processes involved in upgrading and decarbonization of fossil fuels can be
grouped into three categories: (1) solar thermal cracking of hydrocarbons, in which
solid carbon and hydrogen is produced, (2) solar reforming, in which a gaseous
8 1. Introduction
Experimental Work
Chapter 2
Feedstock
The materials used as feedstock for the solar gasification experiments presented in
this thesis are two typical residuals of heavy crude oil refining: a vacuum residue
(VR) and a delayed petroleum coke (coke). These are produced from the processing
of extra heavy crude oil from the Petrozuata oil field in the Orinoco belt (southern
strip of the eastern Orinoco river basin in Venezuela) and were provided by PDVSA,
the Venezuelan oil company.
naphtha
gasoline gas/gasoline
desalter
kerosene
furnace diesel
coke drum
coke drum
atmospheric
residue
distillation
lubricating oil
furnace
furnace
vacuum
residue (VR) residue recycle
Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of a refinery. Only units involved in the con-
version of crude oil to vacuum residue and delayed coke are shown.
12 2. Feedstock
Figure 2.1 shows the main components of a refining facility that are involved in
the production of either VR or coke. Further processing of volatile hydrocarbons is
omitted, whereas the focus is put on the treatment of the residues of the distillation
and coking processes.
Crude oil is usually contaminated with water, inorganic salts, suspended solids,
and water-soluble trace metals. In order to reduce corrosion, plugging, and fouling
of equipment, and to prevent poisoning of the catalysts it is, therefore, desalted
(cleaned) prior to further processing. Crude oil refining is a complex process, which
involves numerous specific secondary processes. Nevertheless, it can be split into
two major steps, especially with respect to the production of vacuum residue and
coke.
The raw coke provided by PDVSA was further processed to the five distinct types
of feedstock listed in Table 2.1. A first shipment consisted of relatively big particles
with characteristic diameters of a few centimeters. Feedstock types 1 and 2 were
obtained by grinding the raw material with a jet mill and a ball mill, respectively
(ARP GmbH, Loeben, Austria). A second shipment was composed by somewhat
smaller particles with a maximal diameter around 1 mm. This material was sieved
with a 80 µm and a 200 µm screen to produce feedstock types 3 and 4, respectively.
Type 5 describes the raw material as received.
Figure 2.2 shows the particle size distribution functions measured by laser scat-
tering with a Horiba LA950. Plotted are the number density f (D) and the respective
volume density f (D)·D3 for the five types of feedstock listed in Table 2.1. Although
the relative number of big particles seems negligible from Fig. 2.2 (a), those parti-
cles carry an important share of the total mass as shown by the volume distribution
curves shifted to the right in Fig. 2.2 (b). SEM pictures of feedstock type 1 are
shown in Fig. 2.3. Frames (a) and (b) show the unreacted spherically-shaped par-
ticles with diameters in the micrometer range. Frames (c) and (d) show particles
after pyrolysis above 1400 K, in which release of volatile matter and thermal cracking
14 2. Feedstock
(a) (b)
1
2 1
5 2 3 4
5
3 4
1 2 5 10 20 1 2 10 100 500
particle diameter D, µm particle diameter D, µm
Figure 2.2: Particle size distribution functions of the petcoke feedstock types listed
in Table 2.1. (a) shows the number density (also called population density); (b)
shows the volume density. Type 1: jet milled, type 2: ball milled, type 3: sieved
with a 80 µm screen, type 4: sieved with a 200 µm screen, type 5: as provided by
PDVSA.
result in the formation of small structures on the particles surface. Finally, frames
(e) and (f) show particles after a typical experimental run from the first campaign
with combined pyrolysis and gasification and carbon conversion of XC =0.75. As
expected, the size of these particles is smaller compared to Fig. 2.3 (a) and (b).
Furthermore, and in contrast to the purely pyrolyzed feedstock, no formation of
small structures on the surface is observed. The elemental composition of the PD
coke is shown in Table 2.2. It mainly consists of carbon (62% molar) and hydrogen
(35% molar) with minor shares of nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur together with nickel,
vanadium and sodium in the ppm range. The lower heating value (LHV) was calcu-
lated as the sum of the elemental LHVs, since the exact composition of the bound
hydrocarbons is not known. The obtained value of 35.8 MJ/Kg is slightly higher
than the LHVs reported for coal [79] (28.5–35.3 MJ/Kg).
2.1. Petrozuata Delayed Coke 15
(a) (b)
1¹m 1¹m
(c) (d)
1¹m 1¹m
(e) (f)
1¹m 1¹m
Figure 2.3: SEM micrographs of petcoke samples used in Campaign 1 (feedstock type
1). (a) and (b) show unreacted particles, (c) and (d) show particles after pyrolysis
above 1400 K, (e) and (f) show particles after a typical experimental run with
combined pyrolysis and gasification and carbon conversion XC =0.75. Magnification:
(a),(c) and (e) 4’000 x; (b),(d) and (f) 10’000 x
16 2. Feedstock
wt% mol%
carbon 88.21 62.06
hydrogen 4.14 34.71
nitrogen 2.28 1.37
oxygen 1.46 0.77
sulfur 4.16 1.10
nickel ppm 414
vanadium ppm 2207
sodium ppm 100
LHV kJ/kg 35876
H/C mol/mol 0.5581
O/C mol/mol 0.0124
3
Material presented in this section has been developed in the framework of: F. Kritter. Injection
system of coal water slurries for solar reactors. Diploma thesis, ETH Zurich, 2005.
2.1. Petrozuata Delayed Coke 17
(a) (b)
700 140
sample 1
dynamic viscosity µ, m · Pa/s
shear stress τ , Pa
500 100
400 80
300 60
200 40
100 20
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
shear rate γ, 1/s shear rate γ, 1/s
Figure 2.4: Viscosity (a) and shear stress (b) as a function of the shear rate of a
water-coke slurry, measured for two types of feedstock [57]. The arrows indicate
the upward and downward curves, obtained by increasing and subsequently decreas-
ing the shear rate, respectively. Nicely visible is the hysteresis loop, typical for
thixotropic fluids.
sample 2, respectively. The slurries were prepared without any chemical additives
by mechanical mixing for several minutes. Viscosity and shear stress were measured
by shear rheometry at CIEMAT in Madrid. Results are plotted in Fig. 2.4. Curves
for dynamic viscosity and shear stress as a function of the shear rate, first increased
from 0 to 1500 1/s and subsequently decreased to 0 1/s, are show in Fig. 2.4 (a)
and (b) respectively. The shape of the curves indicates non-Newtonian thixotropic
behavior of the slurries. This means that the slurries undergo a decrease in viscosity
for increased shear rates. For example, for a shear rate of 250 1/s the viscosity
was 270 and 98.5 m · Pa/s, whereas at a shear rate of 1000 1/s it was 106 and 40.5
m · Pa/s for sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. As expected, the smaller particles
form a more viscous slurry, even if the water-to-coke ratio is doubled. Uniform
slurries were easily produced with the bigger particles but a the cost of storage
instability. In fact, separation of the two phases was observed after a short period
of time, especially for sample 2. During the experimental runs in the solar furnace
the slurry tank was, therefore, constantly stirred.
18 2. Feedstock
wt% mol%
carbon 86.19 42.52
hydrogen 9.6 56.84
nitrogen 0.85 0.36
oxygen 0.16 0.059
sulfur 3.1 0.57
nickel ppm 185
vanadium ppm 774
LHV kJ/kg 40908
H/C mol/mol 1.337
O/C mol/mol 0.0014
Chapter 3
Experimental Setup
reactor insulation
tc S
product outlet
(Al2O3 / ZrO2)
reactor shell
reactor liner
(Inconel)
(Al2O3)
tc K
water cooled window fitting
tc K
multifunctional inlet
oil cooled frustrum
tc K
tc K
tc K
tangential injection
ring gap
tc S
tc K
nozzles
tc K
purging
nozzles
aperture
window
Figure 3.1: Scheme of the solar chemical reactor configuration used for the steam
gasification of carbonaceous materials at a power level of 5kW. The location of the
thermocouples (tc) of types K and S are indicated by stars.
the incident solar radiation; its apparent absorptance is estimated to exceed 0.95
[68]. The cavity is made out of Inconel 601, lined with Al2 O3 , and insulated with
an Al2 O3 /ZrO2 ceramic foam. The aperture is closed by a 0.3 cm thick, clear fused
quartz window, mounted in a water-cooled aluminum ring that also serves as a shield
for spilled radiation. The window is actively cooled and kept clear from particles
and/or condensable gases by means of an aerodynamic protection curtain created
by tangential flow through four tangential nozzles combined to radial flow through a
circular gap. In front of the aperture, the cavity-receiver is equipped with a diverg-
ing conical funnel for mounting the window 6 cm in front of the focal plane, where
the radiation intensity is about 10 times smaller and dust deposition is unlikely to
occur. Since radiation spillage can reach flux concentration ratios greater than 1000,
corresponding to an incident flux of 1000 suns (1 sun = 1 kW/m2 ), this component is
actively oil-cooled and kept in the range 393–453 K to prevent steam condensation.
Steam and particles are injected separately into the reactor cavity, permitting
separate control of mass flow rates and stoichiometry. Steam is introduced through
several ports. Based on flow visualization experiments in Plexiglas models and CFD
simulations, best flow patterns in terms of residence time and flow stability were
obtained with two sets of 4 symmetrically distributed tangential nozzles, located in
planes 4 and 12 cm behind the aperture plane, as shown in Figure 3.1. The petcoke
feeding unit is positioned on the top of the reactor vessel with its inlet port located
at the same plane as the primary steam injection system, allowing for the immediate
entrainment of particles by the steam flow. Inside the cavity, the gas-particle stream
forms a vortex flow that progresses toward the rear along a helical path. Reactor
wall temperatures were measured in 12 locations with type K thermocouples, in-
serted in the Inconel walls and not exposed to direct irradiation (indicated by the
stars in Fig. 3.1). The temperature of the inner Al2 O3 cavity was measured with a
solar-blind pyrometer that is not affected by the reflected solar irradiation because
it measures in a narrow wavelength interval around 1.39 µm where solar irradia-
tion is mostly absorbed by the atmosphere [103]. The nominal reactor temperature,
denoted Tcavity , was then calculated as the mean between the pyrometer reading (cor-
rected for window transmittance, Tpyrometer = Tpyrometer,reading · Tr −0.25
w , where Tr w is
the transmittance) and the thermocouple reading (corrected for conduction through
the Al2 O3 liner with eq. (6.9)). The exit gas temperature was measured with a
type S thermocouple in the outlet pipe, while the temperature of the inlet port was
monitored with an additional type K thermocouple.
22 3. Experimental Setup
steam
steam
Figure 3.2: Feedstock injection setup used in Campaign 1. Petcoke particles are fed
by means of a brush conveyer and further entrained by the steam injected from four
tangential nozzles.
Figure 3.2 shows the injection system used in the first experimental campaign.
The petcoke particles were stored in a tube and conveyed toward a rotating brush
by a piston. Argon was used to flush this rotating brush to ensure constant feeding
rates. The feeding unit was mounted on top of the reactor permitting the particles
to fall into the cavity. They were then entrained by the steam injected from four
tangential nozzles mounted at the same axial position. Smooth overall operation was
3.2. Feedstock Injection 23
experienced with this setup, and a homogenously distributed particle suspension was
obtained (visual observations), which lead to good reactor performance.
petcoke/water slurry
particles/steam
injection (long)
reactor insulation
(Al2O3 / ZrO2) particles/steam
injection (short)
reactor shell
(Inconel)
reactor liner
(Al2O3)
Figure 3.3: Feedstock injection setup used in Campaign 2. The coke-water slurry is
preheated in the tubes cast into the reactor’s insulation, the water evaporates and
the particles are injected into the cavity.
Figure 3.3 shows the injection system used in the second experimental campaign.
The petcoke particles were mixed with water in a constantly stirred tank mounted
above the reactor. The coke-water slurry was then conveyed with a peristaltic pump
and introduced into the cavity trough an Inconel tube cast into the reactor liner. The
water in the slurry is thereby evaporated, the steam expands and the preheated feed-
stock is injected into to cavity. The longer original design of the injection tube had
to be substituted for a shorter one. In fact, due to the high temperatures achieved,
clogging by coking of the particles to the tube walls occurred. As a consequence of
the thixotropic behavior of the slurry the tubing had to be cleaned and filled with
water prior to each feeding cycle. In addition, clogging was prevented by the use of
bigger particles and excess water, which resulted in a lower slurry viscosity.
24 3. Experimental Setup
liqui¯ed VR steam/argon
VR droplets
Figure 3.4: Feedstock injection setup used in Campaign 3. The liquefied vacuum
residue is injected through a cold nozzle, the droplets are subsequently heated, py-
rolyzed and gasified.
Figure 3.4 shows the injection system used in the third experimental campaign.
The vacuum residue is liquefied in a heated tank mounted above the reactor and
kept at approx. 423 K. The VR is conveyed by means of a gear pump, while both,
the tubing and the pump head are heated to approximately 393 K. Five different
reactant injection arrangements were tested, including a setup similar to the one used
in the slurry campaign. Clogging by coking was observed for temperatures above
673 K. The injection location was therefore moved out of the directly irradiated
region and further cooled by a coaxial steam/argon flow. In addition, the nozzle
was removed to ease the VR injection because of the insufficient pressure delivered
by the gear pump. After injection the VR droplets fall inside the cavity, are exposed
to the concentrated radiation and thereby release the volatile matter and break up to
form particles. Due to this low-level injection technology only a part of the resulting
particles was entrained by the gas flow, whereas the bigger particles deposited in the
cavity, thus lowering the reactor’s performance.
3.3. Peripherals and Facility 25
Figure 3.5: Photograph of PSI’s high flux solar furnace. Main visible features are the
sun tracking heliostat, the Venetian-blind type shutter used to control the incoming
radiation and, inside the building, the parabolic concentrator and the reactor.
Experimentation was carried out at the PSI’s solar furnace [34]. This solar re-
search facility, shown in Fig. 3.5, consists of a 120 m2 sun-tracking heliostat in-axis
with an 8.5 m-diameter paraboloidal concentrator, and delivers up to 40 kW at peak
concentration ratios exceeding 5000 suns. A Venetian blind-type shutter located be-
tween the heliostat and the concentrator controls the power input to the reactor.
Radiative solar flux intensities were measured optically with a calibrated CCD cam-
era by recording the image of the sun on a water-cooled Al2 O3 -coated Lambertian
(diffusely reflecting) plate positioned at the focal plane. The reactor itself was sub-
sequently positioned with its aperture at the focal plane and intercepting the regions
of maximum solar flux intensity. Integration of the incident radiative flux over the
reactor’s aperture yielded the solar power input, Q̇solar . The accuracy of the opti-
cal measurement combined with the reactor’s misalignment led to an error of ±913 %
for Q̇solar (for details see Appendix B). Figure 3.6 shows an overview of the most
important peripherals attached to the reactor. Inlet gas flows of Ar and H2 O were
controlled using electronic flow meters (Bronkhorst HI-TEC). Solid particles were
26 3. Experimental Setup
brush mixer
feeder
slurry
screw peristaltic gear pump
conveyor pump
solid residue
pyrometer
flare
concentrated
solar radiation cyclone
product
outlet
window purge
filter /
water cooling circuit condenser
Siemens
calomat
evaporator
Ar Siemens
H2O steam line IR IR
H2O detector
Ar Varian
Bronkhorst steam generator micro GC GC
Figure 3.6: Main components of the experimental setup at PSI’s high flux solar fur-
nace. Three different feeding systems are shown for the three distinct experimental
campaigns performed from 2004 to 2006.
removed from the outlet stream in a cyclone and excess moisture was condensed in a
counterflow heat exchanger. Product gases were analyzed on-line by gas chromatog-
raphy (Varian Micro GC, equipped with a Molsieve-5 and a Poraplot-U column; 1
ppm detection limit; 0.75 min−1 sampling rate). Better temporal resolution was ob-
tained by additional IR-based detectors for CO, CO2 , and CH4 (Siemens Ultramat
23; 0.2% detection limit; 1 s−1 sampling rate), and a thermal conductivity-based
3.4. Key Process Parameters 27
detector for H2 (Siemens Calomat 6; 50 ppm detection limit; 1 s−1 sampling rate
and interfering gas correction). Finally, the product gas was burned on a torch
mounted outside of the building. The reactor’s pressure was monitored with pres-
sure transducers while a pressure safety valve prevented overpressure derived from
a five-fold volumetric growth due to gas formation and thermal expansion. Three
distinct feeding systems were employed for each specific feedstock employed. The
feeding rate of dry coke particles was determined by measuring the weight differ-
ence of the particle conveyor. The rates for slurry and liquefied vacuum residue
were determined by calibration of the feeding pumps before the experiments. An
accuracy of ±5% was estimated. Steam was generated externally in a Bronkhorst
steam generator that allows H2 O concentrations in Argon up to 100%. A combined
heater/cooler was used to temperate the oil flowing trough the diverging frustum.
The spilled radiation impinging on the window mounting was removed by water
cooling. Representative solid product samples collected at the filter downstream of
the reactor were examined by scanning electron micrography.
The total molar flow rate ṅtot at the exit of the reactor was calculated by means of
the known argon input flow rate ṅAr :
ṅAr
ṅtot = (3.2)
yAr
where yAr is the molar fraction of argon in the product gas estimated with yAr =
P
1 − yi , with i = H2 , CO, CO2 , CH4 and O2 under the assumption that argon is
the only non-negligible gas species not detected by the equipment.
28 3. Experimental Setup
ṅAr
ṅtot = − ṅH2 (3.4)
yAr
For example, comparison of the values for Campaign 2 revealed an average difference
of 6% with peak relative errors up to 22%. Note that the automatic interfering gas
correction of the Calomat does not work for nitrogen. The reading for the hydrogen
was therefore corrected manually by 0.09 % H2 for each % N2 .
Other gas species, such as H2 S, C2 H2 , C2 H4 and C2 H6 were not considered here
since their concentrations are negligible for the calculations of energy efficiencies and
chemical conversions.
where ṅ0C denotes the initial amount of carbon fed into the reactor. Similarly, water
conversion is obtained from the oxygen balance:
ṅCO + 2 · ṅCO2
XH2 O = (3.6)
ṅ0H2 O
where ṅ0H2 O denotes the molar amount of water fed by the steam generator and
water contained in the coke-water slurry fed in Campaign 2. Note that the excess
3.4. Key Process Parameters 29
steam, condensed right at the reactor outlet, can then be estimated as ṅH2 O =
(1 − XH2 O ) · ṅ0H2 O .
where XC · ṅ0C describes the amount of carbon gasified and ∆HR |298K = 131 kJ/molC
is the reaction enthalpy. The solar thermal process efficiency ηproc is defined as the
portion of solar energy stored both as LHV in the product gas and sensible heat
— which potentially can be recovered — and takes into account the heat required
for steam generation (evaporation and superheating to 423 K) and the LHV of the
feedstock:
Pspecies R Treactor
ṅH2 LHV H2 + ṅCO LHV CO + i 473k
ṅi cp,i (T ) dT
ηproc = (3.8)
Q̇solar + Q̇steam + ṁfeedstock LHV feedstock
Theoretical maximal values for ηchem are calculated assuming perfect insulation
(Q̇cond = 0), complete chemical conversion (XC = 1) and stoichiometric steam-
to-carbon feeding rates. The useful energy available to heat and react the feed-
stock is then given by the solar power input diminished by the reradiation losses:
4
Q̇solar · (1 − σT
CI
), where C is the average concentration at the aperture and I is the
incident solar radiation intensity. The maximal molar feeding rate of carbon, ṅC ,
heated to a given reactor temperature T and completely reacted results then in
σT 4
Q̇solar · (1 − CI
)
ṅC = RT (3.9)
∆HR |298K + T∞
(cp,C + cp,H2 O + χ · cp,H2 ) dT
where χ is the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio 0.5 · H/C of the feedstock given in Tables
2.2 and 2.3 for coke and vacuum residue, respectively.
Table 3.1 lists theoretical maximal solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficien-
cies as a function of the cavity temperature for coke and vacuum residue and for
the 5 kW prototype reactor and its 300 kW scale-up. Typical values lie in the range
30 3. Experimental Setup
Tcavity , K
feedstock Q̇solar , kW Daperture , mm 1300 1500 1700
ηchem , %
coke 5 50 64 56 48
VR 5 50 61 53 45
coke 300 500 62 52 41
VR 300 500 58 49 38
where ṅH2 ,feedstock accounts for the hydrogen bound in the coke released by pyrolysis
at the entrance of the reactor and the last term accounts for gas generated by
3.4. Key Process Parameters 31
the chemical reaction. Assuming ideal gas behaviour the fluid velocity is given by
dx/dt = u (t) = (ṅ (t) RT ) / (pS), where S is the reactor cross-section. Integration
with respect to time and imposing the boundary conditions x (0) = 0 and x (τ ) = L,
L being the length of the reactor, leads to:
p·V 1
τ= · (3.12)
R · Tcavity ṅ + ṅ 0 0 XC
Ar H2 ,feedstock + ṅH2 O + ṅC · 1 + ln(1−XC )
where V is the reactor volume, XC is the carbon conversion at the outlet, and all ṅi
are meant as initial feeding rates.
32 3. Experimental Setup
Chapter 4
Results
1600
temperature, K
Tcavity
product gas composition, % 1400
Tshell 1200
40
H2 1000
30
Q̇solar
Q̇solar , kW
20 5
CO 4
10 start of CO2
coke feeding 3
CH4
0
0 10 20 30
time, min
Figure 4.1: Temperatures, solar power input and product gas composition for a
typical run of Campaign 1 (run # 7 in Table 4.1). The dashed vertical line indicates
the start of the petcoke feeding, the two vertical dotted lines delimit the interval
considered for the steady state calculations.
temperature, K
power, kW 6 1600
5
4 1500
3
1400
2
1 1300
Figure 4.2: Breakdown of the total input power into heating of the reactants Q̇heating ,
chemical reaction enthalpy Q̇chem , reradiation losses Q̇rerad and conduction losses
Q̇cond for the 23 runs of Campaign 1. Also plotted is the measured solar power
input, Q̇solar with its respective accuracy bounds.
ṁcoke ṁH2 O ṅAr ṅH2 ṅCO ṅCO2 ṅCH4 Q̇solar Tcavity Tshell XC XH2 O ηchem ηproc τ
# g/min mol/min kW K K – – – – s
1 2.3 6.0 0.31 0.22 0.09 0.046 0.004 4.5 1495 1276 0.83 0.55 0.07 0.29 1.0
2 2.0 6.0 0.23 0.17 0.07 0.035 0.005 5.0 1390 1193 0.75 0.42 0.05 0.22 1.2
3 2.4 6.0 0.27 0.24 0.10 0.046 0.008 4.6 1505 1263 0.87 0.58 0.07 0.31 1.0
4 2.1 6.0 0.27 0.18 0.08 0.038 0.008 4.4 1510 1203 0.78 0.46 0.06 0.27 1.0
5 2.3 6.0 0.27 0.12 0.04 0.026 0.011 3.3 1289 1067 0.47 0.28 0.05 0.23 1.3
6 2.2 6.0 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.031 0.007 4.3 1432 1099 0.62 0.38 0.05 0.23 1.1
7 3.5 6.0 0.27 0.20 0.09 0.040 0.007 4.3 1421 1210 0.54 0.52 0.07 0.26 1.1
8 2.9 6.0 0.27 0.23 0.11 0.041 0.006 5.3 1542 1221 0.74 0.58 0.07 0.27 1.0
9 3.5 6.0 0.27 0.28 0.13 0.044 0.008 6.1 1598 1208 0.71 0.66 0.07 0.28 0.9
10 3.6 6.0 0.27 0.29 0.14 0.043 0.004 5.7 1454 1201 0.71 0.68 0.07 0.28 1.0
11 3.9 6.0 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.040 0.007 4.6 1458 1227 0.63 0.64 0.09 0.31 1.0
12 4.5 6.0 0.27 0.29 0.15 0.038 0.004 6.7 1475 1219 0.59 0.68 0.06 0.25 1.0
13 4.5 6.0 0.27 0.28 0.13 0.037 0.008 5.9 1510 1208 0.54 0.62 0.07 0.26 0.9
campaign 1 conducted with dry petcoke particles.
14 3.4 7.0 0.27 0.26 0.12 0.047 0.007 5.6 1694 1214 0.71 0.56 0.07 0.29 0.8
15 3.5 8.0 0.27 0.26 0.13 0.049 0.007 5.8 1719 1224 0.72 0.50 0.07 0.29 0.7
16 3.5 9.0 0.27 0.26 0.12 0.053 0.008 6.6 1671 1231 0.70 0.45 0.06 0.26 0.7
17 3.7 9.0 0.27 0.30 0.12 0.057 0.010 5.3 1650 1230 0.70 0.48 0.08 0.32 0.7
18 3.9 9.0 0.27 0.31 0.14 0.056 0.012 5.7 1618 1220 0.71 0.50 0.08 0.32 0.7
19 4.8 9.0 0.27 0.33 0.15 0.057 0.011 7.0 1614 1213 0.61 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.7
20 3.5 9.0 0.27 0.32 0.13 0.064 0.009 4.6 1466 1266 0.78 0.51 0.09 0.35 0.8
21 3.5 9.0 0.27 0.29 0.12 0.058 0.011 5.0 1439 1223 0.75 0.48 0.08 0.32 0.8
22 3.5 9.0 0.27 0.23 0.09 0.047 0.014 4.3 1355 1137 0.59 0.37 0.08 0.29 0.9
23 2.9 9.0 0.27 0.26 0.11 0.055 0.004 4.6 1513 1325 0.79 0.44 0.08 0.32 0.8
Table 4.1: Steam and petcoke feeding rates, composition of the product gas, nom-
inal temperatures and performance parameters for 23 valid runs of experimental
4. Results
4.2. Coke — Slurry Feeding 37
1600
temperature, K
Tcavity
product gas composition, % 1400
25
Tshell H2 1200
20
1000
15 Q̇solar
Q̇solar , kW
5
10 start of CO
slurry CO2 4
5
feeding
CH4 3
0
0 5 10 15
time, min
Figure 4.3: Temperatures, solar power input and product gas composition for a
typical run of Campaign 1 (run # 10 in Table 4.2). The dashed vertical line indicates
the start of the slurry feeding, the two vertical dotted lines delimit the interval
considered for the steady state calculations.
vealed a residuum of only 1.1 % weight after completion of the gasification reaction
[102]. The reactor’s thermal performance is described by the efficiencies ηchem and
ηproc defined in eq. (3.7) and eq. (3.8), respectively.
Efficiencies up to 5% and 23% were achieved for ηchem and ηproc , respectively.
An energy balance for all experimental runs is shown in Fig. 4.4. Also plotted is
the value of the solar power input Q̇solar . Main power losses are due to re-radiation
Q̇rerad and conduction Q̇cond , with average shares of 17% and 78%, respectively.
Q̇rerad , which takes into account attenuation by the spectrally selective window and
re-radiation through the aperture, was calculated using the radiosity method [124].
The power lost by conduction through the insulation Q̇cond was calculated assuming
a simplified cylindrical reactor geometry and using material properties provided
by the manufacturers. The power delivered for the chemical reaction Q̇chem was
calculated from the reaction enthalpy change at 298 K, whereas that stored in the
form of sensible heat of products was calculated from the species enthalpy change
between 473 K and the corresponding reaction temperature. Q̇steam accounts for the
evaporation and superheating of H2 O from 298 to 423 K (details are given in Chapter
6). Figure 4.5 shows the effect of particle size and slurry stoichiometry on the
4.2. Coke — Slurry Feeding 39
temperature, K
power, kW
4
1500
3
2 1400
1
1300
Figure 4.4: Breakdown of the total input power into heating of the reactants Q̇heating ,
chemical reaction enthalpy Q̇chem , reradiation losses Q̇rerad and conduction losses
Q̇cond for the 29 runs of Campaign 2. Also plotted is the measured solar power
input, Q̇solar with its respective accuracy bounds.
ηchem ηproc XC
1
type 3
carbon conversion XC
type 4 25
0.8
20
efficiency, %
type 2
0.6
15
0.4
10
0.2 5
0 0
3:1 2:1 1.5:1 2:1 1.5:1 1:1
slurry molar ratio H2O/C
Figure 4.5: Carbon conversion and efficiencies for the 29 experimental runs of Cam-
paign 2 grouped by feedstock type and slurry molar ration H2 O/C. Feedstock types
2, 3 and 4 correspond to initial mean particle diameters of 6.7, 17.6 and 30.8 µm,
respectively.
40 4. Results
petcoke chemical conversion and energy conversion efficiency. Higher (H2 O/C)slurry
favors the reaction kinetics, but at the expense of higher mass flow rates and shorter
residence times, resulting in lower XC . It also results in a decrease of ηchem because
of the energy wasted to evaporate and superheat excess water. The opposite is
true for ηproc , assuming the sensible heat of excess steam exiting the reactor is
recovered. Best results were obtained for (H2 O/C)slurry = 1. Plugging of the feeding
systems was observed for (H2 O/C)slurry < 1 and 8.5 µm-particles. In principle, small
particles offer high specific surface area and, consequently, enhance the reaction rate.
Unreacted particles could be recycled in an industrial application.
D30 ṁcoke ṁH2 O (H2 O/C)slurry ṅAr ṅH2 ṅCO ṅCO2 ṅCH4 Q̇solar Tcavity Tshell XC XH2 O ηchem ηproc τ
# µm g/min mol/mol mol/min kW K K – – – – s
1 6.7 1.2 9.6 3.0 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.020 0.000 5.0 1566 1288 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.12 1.0
2 6.7 2.1 10.3 3.0 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 5.1 1516 1066 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.10 1.0
3 30.8 1.7 8.6 2.0 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.022 0.002 4.2 1514 1121 0.25 0.11 0.02 0.13 1.1
4 30.8 1.9 7.7 1.5 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.021 0.002 4.1 1478 1227 0.44 0.19 0.03 0.17 1.2
5 30.8 1.3 6.5 1.5 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.014 0.002 3.6 1431 1188 0.45 0.15 0.03 0.15 1.4
6 30.8 3.4 10.8 1.5 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.023 0.006 4.1 1393 1151 0.25 0.13 0.03 0.16 1.0
7 30.8 0.9 5.8 1.5 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.011 0.001 3.7 1530 1268 0.53 0.14 0.02 0.13 1.5
4.2. Coke — Slurry Feeding
8 30.8 0.3 4.7 1.5 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.004 0.000 3.3 1542 1275 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.08 1.8
9 30.8 1.9 7.7 1.5 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.021 0.002 3.7 1533 1288 0.42 0.18 0.03 0.18 1.2
10 17.6 0.8 6.1 2.0 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.011 0.001 3.8 1536 1283 0.51 0.12 0.02 0.14 1.5
11 17.6 1.8 8.7 2.0 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.021 0.002 4.0 1511 1253 0.50 0.17 0.04 0.21 1.1
12 17.6 1.1 6.1 1.5 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.014 0.001 4.3 1540 1295 0.44 0.14 0.02 0.13 1.4
13 17.6 2.0 8.1 1.5 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.025 0.003 4.7 1507 1264 0.45 0.20 0.03 0.18 1.1
14 17.6 3.6 11.2 1.5 0.13 0.16 0.06 0.034 0.005 4.7 1489 1244 0.38 0.21 0.05 0.23 0.9
15 17.6 1.4 6.8 1.5 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.018 0.002 4.6 1466 1195 0.49 0.18 0.02 0.14 1.3
campaign 2 conducted with a coke-water slurry.
16 17.6 1.4 4.8 1.5 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.016 0.002 4.7 1475 1209 0.51 0.25 0.02 0.14 1.6
17 17.6 1.4 5.8 1.5 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.019 0.002 4.8 1484 1220 0.60 0.24 0.03 0.15 1.4
18 17.6 0.6 4.8 1.0 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.009 0.001 3.2 1547 1309 0.49 0.11 0.01 0.14 1.7
19 17.6 2.4 7.2 1.0 0.13 0.11 0.05 0.020 0.003 3.8 1510 1249 0.38 0.21 0.04 0.20 1.2
20 17.6 1.4 5.8 1.0 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.015 0.002 4.1 1502 1234 0.52 0.20 0.03 0.16 1.5
21 17.6 1.4 4.8 1.0 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.015 0.001 4.0 1533 1266 0.53 0.25 0.03 0.16 1.6
22 17.6 1.4 3.8 1.0 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.013 0.001 3.9 1543 1276 0.48 0.28 0.03 0.15 1.8
23 17.6 0.6 4.8 1.0 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.009 0.000 3.6 1496 1245 0.69 0.15 0.02 0.13 1.7
24 17.6 0.6 4.8 1.0 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.011 0.001 3.7 1514 1257 0.80 0.17 0.02 0.14 1.9
25 17.6 0.6 3.8 1.0 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.012 0.002 3.7 1518 1262 0.87 0.23 0.02 0.14 2.2
26 17.6 0.6 2.8 1.0 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.009 0.001 3.8 1525 1269 0.73 0.26 0.02 0.12 2.3
27 17.6 1.4 5.8 1.0 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.014 0.002 3.8 1512 1258 0.47 0.18 0.03 0.16 1.6
28 17.6 1.4 4.8 1.0 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.012 0.002 3.8 1499 1244 0.44 0.21 0.03 0.15 1.8
29 17.6 2.4 9.2 1.0 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.024 0.003 4.4 1455 1198 0.44 0.20 0.04 0.21 1.1
Table 4.2: Water and petcoke feeding rates, composition of the product gas, nom-
inal temperatures and performance parameters for 29 valid runs of experimental
41
42 4. Results
3
4.3 Vacuum Residue — Liquefied Injection
Table 4.3 lists the operational parameters and results of 12 solar experimental runs
taken under approximate steady-state conditions. Mass flow rate of VR ṁVR was
in the range 0.65–4.17 g/min. Mass flow rate of steam ṁH2 O — injected coaxially
— was in the range 2–6 g/min, corresponding to a H2 O/C molar ratio between 1.12
and 7.18. Ar was injected through purging nozzles to protect the window at a mass
flow rate in the range 0.27–0.36 mol/min. The resulting average residence time for
the coke particles was calculated using eq. (3.12), where ṅH2 ,feedstock denotes the
hydrogen bound in the VR, which is released by pyrolysis at the entrance of the
reactor. Residence time τ for all runs was in the range 0.8–1.8 seconds. The solar
power input Q̇solar varied in the range 3.6–6.8 kW, which corresponds to a mean solar
flux concentration ratio over the reactor’s aperture in the range 1833–3463 suns (1
sun = 1 kW/m2 ). The nominal reactor temperature Treactor was in the range 1420–
1567 K. Typical heating rates exceeded 500 K/s. VR was firstly pyrolyzed, releasing
volatile hydrocarbons such as C2 H2 , C2 H4 , and C2 H6 as reported previously [73, 6].
The remaining solid particles, typically about 15–24 %wt of the original VR —
denoted Conradson carbon residue (CCR, [30]) — underwent steam-gasification to
produce primarily H2 , CO, and CO2 , consistent with the thermodynamic equilibrium
predictions. Chemical conversion for steam XH2 O and carbon XC reached up to 44%
and 50%, respectively.
The variation of temperatures and gas compositions during a representative so-
lar experimental run (run 12 of Table 4.3) is shown in Fig. 4.6. In this run, the
reactor was first heated to above 1550 K under an Ar flow. Thereafter, reactants
were continuously introduced during an interval of 10 minutes at ṁVR =1.2 g/min
and ṁH2 O =2 g/min, corresponding to H2 O/C molar ratio of 1.3. Average molar
flow rates of gaseous products, measured at Treactor =1567 K under approximately
steady-state conditions in the interval indicated by vertical dashed bars of Fig. 4.6,
were: ṅH2 =0.08 mol/min, ṅCO =0.03 mol/min, ṅCO2 =0.01 mol/min, and ṅCH4 =0.002
mol/min. Negligible amounts of volatile hydrocarbons (C2 H4 and C2 H2 at 11 and
60 ppm, respectively) were derived from the pyrolysis of VR, occurring immediately
after exposure to the high-flux solar irradiation. Approximately 40%wt of the CCR
3
Material from this section has been published in: A. Z’Graggen, P. Haueter, G. Maag, M.
Romero, and A. Steinfeld. Hydrogen production by steam-gasification of carbonaceous materials
using concentrated solar energy — IV. reactor experimentation with vacuum residue. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy,33:679–684, 2008.
4.3. Vacuum Residue — Liquefied Injection 43
Tcavity 1600
temperature, K
product gas composition, %
Tshell 1400
1200
15
H2 1000
10 Q̇solar
Q̇solar , kW
start of 5
CO
5 VR 4
feeding CO2
CH4 3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time, min
Figure 4.6: Temperatures, solar power input and product gas composition for a
typical run of Campaign 1 (run # 12 in Table 4.3). The dashed vertical line indicates
the start of the petcoke feeding, the two vertical dotted lines delimit the interval
considered for the steady state calculations.
6
power, kW
5 1500
4
3 1400
2
1 1300
Figure 4.7: Breakdown of the total input power into heating of the reactants Q̇heating ,
chemical reaction enthalpy Q̇chem , reradiation losses Q̇rerad and conduction losses
Q̇cond for the 12 runs of Campaign 3. Also plotted is the measured solar power
input, Q̇solar with its respective accuracy bounds.
44 4. Results
ṁ, g/min
5
0.6 4
0.4 3
2
0.2
1
0 0
experimental runs ordered by increasing ṁVR
Figure 4.8: Fractions of hydrogen in the product gas derived by either pyrolysis or
gasification, and the feeding rates of reactants VR and steam for experimental runs
of Campaign 3.
deposited as solid agglomerates inside the cavity (size up to 5 mm), which contained
90% carbon, 3.5% sulfur, and 5% metallic fraction constituted by 75% V and 18%
Ni. This composition is comparable to that of Petrozuata Delayed coke [101]. The
rest consisted of particles with a carbon content of 96.5%, a BET specific surface
area of 20.5 m2 /g (determined with Micromeritics TriStar Analyzer), and a mean
particle size of 6.5 µm(determined by laser scattering with a Horiba LA950). Energy
conversion efficiencies up to 2% and 17% were achieved for ηchem and ηproc , respec-
tively. Main heat losses are due to re-radiation through the aperture and conduction
through the insulation, with average shares of 17% and 73%, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 4.7. Re-radiation losses, which take into account attenuation by the spec-
trally selective quartz window and emission through the aperture, were calculated
using the radiosity method [124]. Conduction heat losses, which take into account
heat bridges through the oil-cooled components, were calculated using the thermal
conductivities of the insulation materials, as provided by the manufacturer (for de-
tails see Chapter 6). Optimization for minimizing heat losses and maximizing the
solar energy conversion efficiency was outside the scope of this study. Figure 4.8
reveals the origin of the H2 in the product gas. Plotted for all experimental runs are
the fractions of hydrogen derived by either pyrolysis or gasification, χH2 ,gasification and
χH2 ,pyrolysis , and the feeding rates of reactants, ṁVR and ṁH2 O (ordered by increasing
4.3. Vacuum Residue — Liquefied Injection 45
ṁVR ). Average values were χH2 ,pyrolysis =63% and χH2 ,gasification =37%. As expected,
a higher ṁVR resulted in a higher χH2 ,pyrolysis since H2 contained in the VR is com-
pletely released during the pyrolysis step. In contrast, ṁH2 O had negligible effect
because H2 O was fed in excess and only partly consumed by the gasification process.
Ideally, complete conversion of carbon bound in the vacuum residue would result in
χH2 ,pyrolysis =40% and χH2 ,gasification =60%.
46
ṁVR ṁH2 O ṅAr ṅH2 ṅCO ṅCO2 ṅCH4 CC2 H4 CC2 H6 CC2 H2 Q̇solar Tcavity Tshell XC XH2 O ηchem ηproc τ
# g/min mol/min ppm kW K K – – – – s
1 1.0 3.0 0.29 0.05 0.02 0.010 0.005 1462 9 2238 5.6 1420 1096 0.44 0.23 0.01 0.09 1.5
2 4.2 6.0 0.36 0.17 0.03 0.008 0.013 1467 29 1943 5.6 1488 1160 0.16 0.13 0.02 0.18 0.8
3 0.7 6.0 0.36 0.05 0.01 0.011 0.002 32 0 214 4.2 1472 1232 0.50 0.10 0.01 0.13 1.0
paign 3 conducted with liquefied VR.
4 1.2 6.0 0.36 0.07 0.01 0.010 0.005 88 0 619 3.8 1552 1274 0.31 0.10 0.02 0.17 1.0
5 2.2 6.0 0.36 0.11 0.02 0.010 0.008 308 2 1381 4.1 1543 1271 0.24 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.9
6 2.2 6.0 0.27 0.11 0.02 0.013 0.005 231 2 999 5.4 1534 1233 0.27 0.15 0.02 0.15 1.0
7 0.7 4.0 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.008 0.002 53 0 344 3.9 1491 1264 0.41 0.12 0.01 0.11 1.4
8 1.2 4.0 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.008 0.003 80 0 570 3.6 1501 1298 0.27 0.13 0.01 0.14 1.3
9 1.7 4.0 0.27 0.08 0.02 0.009 0.004 88 1 594 4.2 1540 1290 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.14 1.2
10 0.7 2.0 0.27 0.03 0.01 0.007 0.001 16 0 124 4.1 1503 1320 0.34 0.20 0.01 0.08 1.8
11 1.2 2.0 0.27 0.05 0.01 0.007 0.005 408 3 1345 6.8 1513 1191 0.32 0.27 0.01 0.07 1.7
12 1.2 2.0 0.28 0.08 0.03 0.010 0.002 11 0 60 4.9 1567 1332 0.48 0.44 0.02 0.12 1.5
temperatures and performance parameters for 12 valid runs of experimental cam-
Table 4.3: Steam and VR feeding rates, composition of the product gas, nominal
4. Results
4.4. Comparison 47
4.4 Comparison
Table 4.4: Average operational parameters and results of the solar experimental
campaigns conducted with dry coke powder, cokewater slurry, and VR.
Table 4.4 summarizes the main average process parameters for three experimental
campaigns performed with comparable solar power inputs and reactor temperatures,
and with three different feedstocks: (1) dry coke powder (with steam fed separately),
(2) coke-water slurry, and (3) VR (with steam fed separately). The campaign with
dry coke powder outperforms the other two in terms of chemical conversion and en-
ergy efficiency. For example, ηproc is 28.3%, 15.2% and 12.3% for dry coke powder,
slurry, and VR, respectively. In the slurry campaign, the overall performance was
diminished by excess water fed as a result of the high H2 O/C molar ratios required
for the slurry. In the VR campaign, besides using excess water, the formation of
solid agglomerates affected negatively the chemical conversion. The implementation
of a spray nozzle may facilitate dispersion into smaller particles and, consequently,
enhance the reaction kinetics. The aerodynamic protection of the window worked
well for the duration of all experimental runs, each about 45 minutes. The win-
dow was maintained clean and clear from particle deposition or condensable gases.
The oil-cooled frustum served as a buffer zone between the window and the cavity
(reaction chamber), and prevented steam condensation. In a scale-up application
for a solar tower concentrating facility, this annular component may be heated with
spilled radiation from the heliostat field. Argon should be completely substituted
by steam to avoid the energy and cost of recycling an inert gas.
48 4. Results
Part II
Modeling
Chapter 5
Simulation Framework
The simulations presented in the second part of this thesis share a common set
of boundary conditions and models for the chemical kinetics and the polydisperse
particulate medium. The characteristics of the incoming solar radiation as well as the
conductive behavior of the reactor walls were determined by stand-alone preliminary
simulations. Wall and window radiative properties are presented. The concept of
‘equivalent monodisperse diameter’ is introduced to model the polydisperse feedstock
types, which have random size-distribution functions. Finally, the kinetic rate laws
for steam gasification of petcoke developed by Trommer [102] are presented.
10
concentrated
5 radiation
z, m 0
{5 reactor
{10 heliostat
0
parabolic concentrator 10
10
20 0
x, m y, m
30
{10
Figure 5.1: Simulation setup used to determine the angular and radial distributions
of the incoming concentrated solar radiation at PSI’s solar furnace [34].
The same simulation setup was used in the early stages of the engineering design
to estimate the radiative flux intensities to be expected inside the cavity. Figure 5.4
shows lines of equal incident solar flux q̇solar in kW, projected on planes parallel to
the aperture. An aperture diameter of 50 mm and a nominal power through the
aperture of 5 kW were considered, while no interaction with the cavity walls was
modeled. Maximal q̇solar >3050 W/m2 is reached on a small spot at the center of
the aperture. Peak values of 2959, 2815, 2088 and 1318 W/m2 are predicted for
planes located 1, 2, 3 and 4 cm behind the aperture. Also indicated is the cavity of
the prototype reactor presented in Chapter 3 (gray). In that reactor particles are
injected on a plane 4 cm away from the aperture in order to take advantage of the
still highly concentrated radiation (1318 kW/m2 ), on the one hand, and to prevent
the particles to exit the reactor through the aperture on the other.
5.1. General Boundary Conditions 53
(a) (b)
2.5
3 5 300
2 250
q̇solar , MW/m2
q̇solar , MW/m2
4
Q̇solar , kW
Q̇solar , kW
2 200
1.5
3
150
2 1
1 100
1 0.5
50
0 0 0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0 0.25 0.5
Daperture , m Daperture , m
Figure 5.2: Solar radiative flux (left axis) and solar power (right axis) as a function
of the aperture’s diameter for (a) PSI’s solar furnace, and (b) CIEMAT’s solar tower.
0
−π/8 π/8
−π/4 π/4
Figure 5.3: Angular distribution of the concentrated solar radiation at the aperture
for PSI’s solar furnace and CIEMAT’s solar tower.
54 5. Simulation Framework
100 0.05
50 mm
50
aperture
0
0.025
100
280
0
0
20
305
00
r, m
0 0
incoming
250
radiation -0.025
-0.05
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
x, m
Figure 5.4: Lines of equal projected incident solar flux q̇solar in kW/m2 on planes
parallel to the aperture. Results are given for a 50 mm aperture and a nominal
power trough the aperture Q̇solar =5 kW. Also indicated is the shape of the prototype
reactor’s cavity (gray).
outside inside
q̇cond q̇ic
4
σTwall
T1
natural Twall
convection Tshell
reactor insulation reactor shell (Inconel)
(Al2O3 / ZrO2)
reactor liner (Al2O3)
Figure 5.5: Schematic of heat fluxes at the wall. Radiation emitted by particles
and other cavity wall elements, q̇ic , is incident from the inside (right), while the wall
itself emits radiation toward the inside. On the outside (left) the reactor is cooled
by natural convection. Finally, conduction occurs through the three material layers
of the wall.
heat transfer coefficient U is related to the oil temperature on the front cone and to
the ambient temperature T∞ for the rest of the cavity.
Diffuse gray surfaces ( = 0.8) are assumed for the reactor’s inner walls because
of deposited petcoke particles. The impact of the uncertainty of on Tcavity and
XC was assessed by sensitivity analysis (see Section 7.4). In the average, a change
of 10% in induced a change of 0.4 % in Tcavity and XC . Convective heat transfer
from the walls to the fluid is found by CFD to be two orders of magnitude smaller
than the heat transfer by radiation and conduction, and is therefore neglected. An
energy balance at the wall leads then to the following implicit expression for the
temperature: Z ∞
4
q̇ic,λ λ dλ − σTwall − q̇cond = 0 (5.1)
0
where q̇ic is the incident thermal radiation, the second term accounts for radiation
emitted from the wall, and the third term accounts for the conduction heat loss
through the wall:
q̇cond = U · (T∞ − Twall ) (5.2)
56 5. Simulation Framework
160
U , W/(m2 K) 120
front cone
80 rear cone
cylinder
40
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
x, cm
Figure 5.6: Overall heat transfer coefficient U for conductive losses trough the reactor
walls as a function of the location along the reactor axis. Also indicated is the
longitudinal cross-section of the reactor’s cavity.
The spectral directional reflectivity ρλ (θ) of the quartz window surface is calculated
with the Fresnel equations [68] and the complex refractive index n + ik from [72],
while the absorption coefficient of the window is given by κλ = 4πkλ /λ. The ‘one
pass’ transmittance trough the window τ is then given by τ = e−κ·s , where s is
the distance traveled in the quartz, determined by the window thickness and the
incidence angle θ. Assuming similar refractive indexes on both sides of the win-
dow, the total transmittance, reflectance and absorptance used in the simulation are
expressed by (subscripts λ omitted for clarity) [68]:
(1 − ρ)2 τ
Tr w = (5.3)
1 − ρ2 τ 2
!
(1 − ρ)2 τ 2
Rw = ρ 1+ (5.4)
1 − ρ2 τ 2
(1 − ρ) (1 − τ )
Aw = (5.5)
1 − ρτ
Figure 5.7 shows the complex refractive index of quartz and the total transmittance
Tr w of a 3 mm thick window for selected incident angles θ = 0, 45 and 60◦ as a
5.1. General Boundary Conditions 57
Tr w,0 Tr w,45 1
2.5
Tr w,60 0.8
2
n 0.6
Tr w,θ
n; k
1.5
0.4
1
0.5 0.2
k
0 0
0.1 1 10
λ, µm
Figure 5.8 shows the heat fluxes considered at the window. The window temper-
ature is assumed constant over it’s thickness of 3 mm. Convective heat losses on the
outside are then given by q̇conv = h · (T∞ − Tw ) where h = 263 W/(m2 K) is obtained
from the empirical correlation Nux = 0.0308 · Re4/5 x · Pr
1/3
for turbulent flow over
a flat plate [44], as the window is cooled externally by a ventilator. The impact
of the uncertainty of h on Tcavity and XC was assessed by sensitivity analysis (see
Section 7.4). In the average, a change of 10% in h induced a negligible change of
0.03 % in Tcavity and XC . Similarly to eq. (5.1) heat balance for the window yields:
Z ∞
(q̇ic,λ + q̇solar,λ ) Aw,λ dλ − 2σAw (Tw ) Tw4 − q̇conv = 0 (5.6)
0
58 5. Simulation Framework
outside inside
µ = 45º
Tw
q̇solar q̇ic
T1
q̇conv window
ventilator
Figure 5.8: Schematic of heat fluxes at the window. Concentrated solar radiation
q̇solar is incident from the outside of the reactor (left) whereas radiation emitted by
the cavity walls and particles, q̇ic , is coming from the inside (right). The window itself
emits radiation on both sides. Finally, the window is cooled by forced convection on
the outside.
Np Np
1 X 1 X
f (D) = δ (D − Di ) = w (D − Di , ∆D) (5.7)
Np i=1 Np i=1
where the Dirac delta function δ is substituted for a symmetric kernel function w
R∞
around 0 with bandwidth ∆D and with 0 w dD = 1 (typically, w is a Gaussian
error distribution curve). The solid lines in Figure 5.9 show f (D) · D3 , the volume
density measured by laser scattering, for feedstocks type 1 and 3 considered here
(see also Fig. 2.2). As a consequence of the chemical reaction the particles shrink by
a factor ηsk = Di (XC > 0) /Di (XC = 0), thus influencing the distribution function:
Np
1 X
w D − Di0 · ηsk , ∆D
fsk (D) = (5.8)
Np i=1
5.2. Polydisperse Coke Particles 59
XC = 0.0
XC = 0.5
XC = 0.75
type 3
type 1
f (D) · D3
1 10 100
D, µm
Figure 5.9: Volume density of the polydisperse particles used in Campaigns 1 (type
1) and 2 (type 3). Solid lines are measured values for the unreacted samples, dashed
and dashed-dotted lines are calculated results at carbon conversions of 0.5 and 0.75,
respectively.
where ηsk is a function of the particle diameter and of the extent of the reaction (see
Section 5.3 for details about the differences in reactivity as a function of particle
size).
Two examples of the modified distribution function are given in Fig. 5.9, for a
total reaction extent XC =0.5 and 0.75:
R∞
0
fsk · (D · ηsk )3 dD
XC = 1 − R∞ (5.9)
0
f · D3 dD
As expected, bigger particles tend to react slower than the small ones leading to a
shape change of the distribution function as the chemical reaction progress, observ-
able especially for feedstock type 3. For simplification, the polydisperse medium can
be described by a set of equivalent monodisperse diameters defined generally as:
1
f (D) Dp dD ( p−q )
R ∞
0
Dpq = R∞ (5.10)
0
f (D) Dq dD
where p and q are integer numbers between 0 and 3. D30 , D31 , D32 are applied for
60 5. Simulation Framework
100
type 3
10
D, µm
1
Dη
D32
D31 type 1
0.1 D30
0 0.75 0.95 0.99 1
XC
Figure 5.10: Equivalent monodisperse diameters calculated with eqs (5.10) and
(5.26) of the polydisperse particles used in Campaigns 1 (type 1) and 2 (type 3)
as a function of the carbon conversion.
λ, µm n k
0.308 1.96 0.869
1.35 2.04 0.901
2.40 2.11 0.934
3.44 2.19 0.966
4.49 2.27 0.998
5.53 2.35 1.03
For size parameter ξ = πD/λ in the range 0.1 − 103 considered here, Mie theory
applies [11]. The efficiency factors for absorption, scattering and extinction of a
single sphere, Qa,λ , Qs,λ , and Qext,λ are calculated based on the complex refractive
index of the solid material using the routine BHMIE [11]. For ξ > 5, geometrical
optics applies and eq. (5.12) simplifies to:
3 fV
{κλ , σsλ , βλ } = · {Qa,λ , Qs,λ , Qext,λ } (5.13)
2 D32
Comparison of the values calculated with eq. (5.12) and with the simplified approach
of eq. (5.13) showed negligible differences for the particle size distributions considered
in this study (note that for the comparison Qa,λ , Qs,λ , and Qext,λ in eq. 5.13 were
evaluated at D32 ). κλ , σsλ and βλ of the polydisperse particle cloud are therefore
calculated by means of eq. (5.13) based on the equivalent diameter for radiation,
D32 .
Figures 5.11 (a) and (b) show the spectral absorption and scattering coefficients
of the particulate medium in Campaigns 1 (feedstock type 1) and 2 (type 3), respec-
tively, for a typical initial volume fraction fV = 5 · 10−5 , and for carbon conversions
XC = 0, 0.5, and 0.75. The smaller particles of Campaign 1 absorb more than 10
times better that those of Campaign 2.
Analogous to eq. (5.12) the scattering phase function of the polydisperse particle
62 5. Simulation Framework
(a) (b)
120 8
XC = 0.0 XC = 0.0
80
κ λ ; σλ,s , 1/m
κ λ ; σλ,s , 1/m
4
0.5 0.5
2
40 0.75
0.75
1
σλ,s σλ,s
20 κλ κλ
0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4
λ, µm λ, µm
Figure 5.11: Spectral distribution of the absorption and scattering coefficients, cal-
culated for a typical volume fraction of 5 · 10−5 and carbon conversions of 0.0, 0.5
and 0.75, for the feedstock used in (a) Campaign 1, and (b) Campaign 2.
cloud is found by a weighted sum of the phase functions of each particle size [68]:
R∞
0
Φλ (D, ω0 ) · Qs,λ · f (D) D2 dD
ΦTλ (ω0 ) = R∞ (5.14)
0
Qs,λ · f (D) D2 dD
where Φλ is calculated with the routine BHMIE [11]. Because of computational time
restraints, the Henyey-Greenstein approximation [36] is introduced,
2
1 − gTλ
ΦTλ (D, θ0 ) = 3/2
(5.15)
2
(1 + gTλ − 2gTλ · cos θ0 )
(a)
Mie for D32 = 3.134 µm
10
3 Mie, polydisperse at XC = 0.0
HG, polydisperse at XC = 0.0
2
10
λ = 0.5 µm
Φ
1 λ = 2.0 µm
10
0
10
−1
10
0 π/4 π/2
θ, rad
(b)
Mie for D32 = 1.99 µm
103
Mie, polydisperse at XC = 0.75
HG, polydisperse at XC = 0.75
102 λ = 0.5 µm
Φ
101 λ = 2.0 µm
100
10−1
0 π/4 π/2
θ, rad
Figure 5.12: Scattering phase function for the equivalent diameter D32 , for the
polydisperse medium (eq. (5.14)), and for the Henyey-Greenstein approximation
(eq. (5.15)), calculated for carbon conversions of (a) 0.0; and (b) 0.75, for the
feedstock used in Campaign 1. Directions θ = π/2 – π not shown in plot, because
no backward scattering peak was observed.
for the Henyey-Greenstein (HG) approximation (eq. (5.15)). Preference for forward
scattering is observed. As expected, the polydisperse particle cloud has a smoother
scattering phase function, which is well approximated by the HG equation.
Table 5.2: Arrhenius parameters of the kinetic rate constants for the steam gasifi-
cation of coke [100].
EA , J/mol k0 , 1/s
K1 2.707 · 105 1.158 · 103
K2 1.615 · 102 4.978 · 10−1
K3 −9.404 · 104 1.149 · 10−7
K4 7.068 · 103 4.033 · 10−8
K5 4.551 · 102 8.152 · 10−6
4 ·D 2 ·D
η (D) = 0.571e−1.29·10 + 0.429e−9.56·10 (5.24)
Dη ,
R ∞
f (D) D3 · η (D) dD
−1 0
Dη = η R∞ (5.26)
0
f (D) D3 dD
where η −1 denotes the inverse function of eq. (5.24).
Chapter 6
The engineering design of the reactor presented in the first part of this thesis was
supported by performance calculations based on a simple lumped-parameters model.
Figure 6.1 shows the mass and energy flows that are considered. The system bound-
ary is defined by the reactor shell. Coke and Argon are fed at ambient temperature,
whereas H2 O is first evaporated and fed at Tsteam =423 K. Inside the cavity the re-
actants are heated to the reaction temperature Tcavity and eventually react to form
a mixture of Ar, H2 , CO, CO2 and residual steam and carbon. The products exit
the reactor at Tcavity and are cooled down to Thx =473 K in a heat exchanger, where
a part of the sensible heat is recovered. A fraction of the incident solar power Q̇solar
is lost either by radiation, Q̇rerad , which accounts for reradiation from the cavity as
well as for emission and reflection from the window, or by conduction through the
cavity walls Q̇cond .
1
Material from this section has been published in: A. Z’Graggen, P. Haueter, D. Trommer, M.
Romero, J. C. de Jesus, and A. Steinfeld. Hydrogen production by steam-gasification of petroleum
coke using concentrated solar power — II. reactor design, testing, and modeling. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 31:797–811, 2006.
68 6. System Analysis — Lumped Parameters Model
insulation reactor
oil cooling, Toil Tshell
window
Q̇chem
Q̇cond
Q̇rerad
coke
Q̇sensible
ṁcoke
ṅAr Thx
ṅAr
ṅH2 O Tsteam Ar
(1-XC) ṅC
Ar C
(1-XH2 O) ṅH2 O
H2O
Q̇steam XC ṅC
H2O T1 CO,H2
Figure 6.1: Diagram of the considered process and it’s energy and mass flows used
in the simulation.
Formulation of steady state energy conservation for the cavity results then in:
X X
0 = Q̇solar − Q̇rerad − Q̇cond + ṅi,in · hi (Tin ) − ṅi,out · hi (Tcavity ) (6.1)
species species
The enthalpy difference described by the last two terms of eq. (6.1) can also be
expressed as the sum of the power required to heat the feedstock from Tin to Tcavity ,
Q̇heating , and the enthalpy change due to the chemical reaction, Q̇chem :
where the conduction heat losses are calculated with the overall heat transfer coef-
ficient U presented in 5.1.2:
and Ucone = 65 and Ucavity = 22 W/(m2 K) are overall heat transfer coefficients
relative to Toil and T∞ , respectively. Values given are averages over Scone and Scavity ,
the inner surface of the reactor’s front cone and the surface of the rest of the cavity,
respectively.
where the first therm accounts for reflected incoming radiation, the second term
for radiation reradiated from the cavity and the third term for emission from the
window. The total window absorptance Aw , reflectance Rw and transmittance Tr w
are calculated from the spectral values presented in eqs (5.3)–(5.5) as:
R∞
0
Eλb (T ) · {Aλ,w , Rλ,w , Tr λ,w } dλ
{Aw , Rw , Tr w } = R∞ (6.5)
0
Eλb (T ) dλ
where Eλb (T ) is the Plank’s blackbody spectral emissive power at Tsun = 5780 K or
Tcavity depending on the origin of the radiation. The factor 1/2 in the third therm of
eq. (6.4) takes into account emission from both sides of the window. Note also that
the radiative flux incident on the window from the inside of the cavity, used in the
4
second and third term of eq. (6.4), is approximated simply by σTcavity . In fact the
apparent absorptions of the cavity is close to one and furthermore the radiation is
mostly absorbed/emitted by the particles. This is in contrast the method presented
previously in [123] where the radiosity method was used to determine incident fluxes
on the window.
where the enthalpy of the reaction ∆HR is evaluated at the temperature of the
cavity. The gas composition at the outlet and the carbon conversion are found by
numerical integration of the system of differential equations given in eqs (5.18)–
(5.22), assuming a plug flow reactor. Similarly to Section 3.4.4 the fluid velocity is
70 6. System Analysis — Lumped Parameters Model
P
given by u (t) = ṅ
species i (t) RT / (pS) and the integration is stopped at t = τ ,
Rτ
where the mean residence time τ is given by the implicit relation L = 0 u (t) dt,
and L is the length of the reactor. The sensible heat that can be recovered from the
product gases is then defined as:
X Z Tcavity
Q̇sensible = ṅi · cp,i (T ) dT (6.7)
species Thx
Ucavity
Tshell = Tcavity − · (Tcavity − T∞ ) (6.9)
Ushell
where the overall heat transfer coefficient between cavity wall and outer Inconel shell
Ushell = 108 W/(m2 K) is calculated assuming 1D cylindrical conduction:
1
Ushell = P log(Di+1 /Di )
(6.10)
Dcavity · layers ki
where ki and Di describe the thermal conductivity and the diameter of the different
material layers involved, respectively.
6.2 Results
Two parameter studies were performed for the baseline simulation parameters listed
in Table 6.1: (1) the optimal volume and coke feeding rates were identified for a
reactor operating at 5 kW and with a 50 mm in diameter aperture, (2) the potential
of up-scaling the ideal configuration found in (1) was investigated up to a nominal
power of 1 MW.
Figure 6.2 shows the results for parameter study (1): the carbon conversion
6.2. Results 71
Table 6.1: Baseline model parameters for the studies conducted for the 5 kW lab
scale reactor and it’s scale-up.
at the exit of the reactor (a), defined in eq. (3.5), the solar-to-chemical efficiency
(c), defined in eq. (3.7), and the temperatures of the cavity (b) and of the Inconel
shell (d) as a function of the coke feeding rate and the reactor volume. A lower
petcoke feeding rate leads to a higher chemical conversion due to longer residence
times, but at the expense of a lower net solar energy absorbed. In contrast, a higher
coke feeding rates lead to a larger portion of energy used for heating the feedstock
but not converted into chemical energy. A similar effect has an increase in the
reactor volume, resulting in longer residence times and higher chemical conversion,
but at the expense of higher conduction losses. Optimal parameters determined for
maximum energy conversion efficiency were ṁcoke = 7.5 g/min and Vreactor = 0.54
dm3 . Unfortunately, these parameters resulted in very high temperatures for the
reactor liner Tcavity =1771 K as well as for the Inconel shell Tshell =1418 K. In order
to reduce the thermal load of the reactor components, the prototype reactor was,
therefore, designed with a cavity volume of 1.6 dm3 resulting in a slight decrease in
maximal ηchem from 20% to 17%.
The effect of scaling-up the reactor is elucidated in Fig. 6.3, where ηchem and
72 6. System Analysis — Lumped Parameters Model
(a) (b)
16 0.1
XC 1400
12 0.25
ṁcoke , g/min
1500
0.5
8 Tcavity, K
1600
0.9
2000 1800
4
1
2400 2200
0
(c) (d)
16 ηchem
0.05 0.05
0.1 Tshell, K
ṁcoke , g/min
12 1200
0.14
8 0.17 1300
0.19
1400
0.14 1600
4 0.1
0.05 1800
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Vcavity, dm3 Vcavity, dm3
Figure 6.2: Carbon conversion (a), cavity (b) and shell (d) temperatures and chem-
ical efficiency (c) as a function of the carbon feeding rate and the reactor volume for
the 5 kW prototype reactor and the baseline parameter listed in Table 6.1.
ηproc together with the related Tcavity and XC are plotted as a function of Q̇solar and
ṁcoke , using as baseline the optimum operating conditions found in Fig. 6.2. The
aperture diameter and the volume were adjusted to keep a constant Q̇solar /Aaperture
2/3
ratio (average flux of 2300 suns) and constant Q̇solar /Vcavity , respectively. Further,
the oil cooling of the reactor front is omitted and an improved ceramic insulation is
assumed (U = 10, W/ (m2 K)). There is a remarkable positive effect of scaling-up the
reactor as a result of the relatively lower conduction losses through a smaller area-
to-volume ratio. For example, for an optimum petcoke feeding rate, the predicted
ηchem of a 40, 200, and 1000 kW reactor are 12%, 32%, and 35%, respectively,
whereas the predicted ηproc are 49%, 73%, and 74%, respectively. The locations of
maximal efficiency lie on straight lines of constant ṁcoke /Q̇solar in the range 0.13–0.15
6.2. Results 73
(a) (b)
120
1200
100
0.1
0.5
1000
9
0
0.
0.001
00
ṁcoke , kg/h
00
140
80 1
16
18
00
60 20
0
40 220
XC 2400
20
Tcavity, K
0
(c) (d)
120
ηproc
73
34
100
0.
0.
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.7
ṁcoke , kg/h
0.3 3
0.4
80 0.7
0.2
0.1
0.3
4
0.3
0.01
60
0.2 0.6
40
0.1 0.4
20 ηchem 0.2
0
200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000
Q̇solar , kW Q̇solar , kW
Figure 6.3: Predicted carbon conversion (a), cavity temperature (b), chemical effi-
ciency (c) and process efficiency (d) as a function of the carbon feeding rate and the
solar power for a scaled-up reactor. The baseline parameter are listed in Table 6.1.
kg/ (hr · kW) with typical related XC in the range 0.9–1.0 and Tcavity in the range
1700–1900 K.
Finally, the simulation model was run for the operational parameters of each
experimental run listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for Campaign 1 and Campaign 2, re-
spectively. Figure 6.4 shows numerically calculated and experimental measured data
for the (a) 23 solar experimental runs of Campaign 1; and (b) 20 solar experimental
runs of Campaign 2, ordered by increasing Q̇solar . Shown are the cavity and shell
temperatures, the carbon conversion and the steam conversion. Full circles indicate
numerically calculated values; open circles indicate the experimentally measured
data. The error bars indicate the propagated inaccuracy of the input parameters,
namely ±913 % and ±5 % for the solar input power Q̇solar and the feeding rate ṁcoke ,
74 6. System Analysis — Lumped Parameters Model
Q̇ solar, kW
Q̇ solar, kW
5
T, K
T, K
1200 4.3
1200
4.5
T shell T shell 4.2
4
800 RMST 800 RMSTcavity = 0.018
cavity = 0.016
RMSTshell = 0.05 RMSTshell = 0.045
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
XC
XC
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
RMS = 0.31 RMS = 0.63
0 0
steam conversion steam conversion
1 1
RMS = 1.3 measured
0.8 0.8 calculated
0.6 0.6
X H2 O
X H2 O
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
RMS = 0.47
0 0
1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17
experiment # experiment #
respectively (see Section 3.3). The simulation was able to successfully predict the
reactor temperatures. In fact, relative RMS errors below 5% were found for the
shell temperatures Tshell and the cavity temperatures Tcavity and for both campaigns.
6.2. Results 75
In Campaign 1, most predictions for XC and XH2 O lie inside the accuracy bounds.
Nevertheless, the considerable width of these accuracy bounds shows the fuzziness
of the results. For Campaign 2, finally, the simulation fails to predict the chemical
conversion, especially for H2 O, the RMS being 130%. In fact, the simple model used
does not consider the dependency between particle size and radiation absorption ef-
ficiency, thus overestimating the performance of experimental runs performed with
poorly absorbing particles (experimental Campaign 2 with feedstock type 3).
76 6. System Analysis — Lumped Parameters Model
Chapter 7
A model for heat and mass transfer inside the cavity of the reactor presented in
Section 3.1 was developed. It solves for radiative, conductive, and convective heat
transfer, fluid flow and reaction kinetics. The model is implemented as two separate
solver modules: (1) a finite volume solver (CFD) that solves for coupled radiative,
conductive and convective heat transfer, fluid flow and reaction kinetics and (2) a
Monte-Carlo (MC) raytracer that provides the source term for radiation used in (1).
The intrinsic statistical variance induced by the MC solver is reduced by means of
Gaussian kernel smoothing and adaptive underrelaxation when coupled to the finite
volume solver. The main boundary conditions were previously presented in Chapter
5 as well as the treatment of the walls and the window.
The two-phase medium considered is composed by a solid particulate polydis-
persion suspended in a gas mixture. The particle diameters of the solid phase are in
the range 1–100 µm. The particle suspension is modeled as a non gray absorbing,
emitting, and scattering participating medium subjected to concentrated thermal
radiation. Typical radiative equilibrium temperatures are in the range 1500–1800
K. Both solid and gas phases are involved in the heterogeneous chemical reaction
taking place predominantly on the outer surface of the solid particles and, to some
extent, on the inner porous surface of the particles. As the gasification reaction
1
Material from this chapter has been submitted for publication as: A. Z’Graggen, and A.
Steinfeld. Heat and Mass Transfer Analysis of a Suspension of Reacting Particles subjected to
Concentrated Solar Radiation — Application to the Steam-Gasification of Carbonaceous Materials.
International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer, 2007.
78 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
progresses, the solid particles shrink and their thermal properties vary, as well as
the optical properties of the particle suspension.
The scheme developed here is able to deal with concentrated thermal radiation
input, polydisperse particulate media with spectral and directional optical proper-
ties, and temperature-dependent chemical kinetics and fluid properties. Validation
is accomplished by comparing numerical and experimental results.
ρs · cp,s · D2
τcond = (7.1)
4 · ks
Values 10 to 105 times smaller than τflow are found for particles of 100 to 1 µm,
respectively. Uniform temperature is therefore assumed for a single particle. The
relaxation time for convective heat transfer of the temperature of a sphere submerged
in a fluid at a different temperature reads:
ρs · cp,s · D
τconv = (7.2)
6·h
Particles are assumed to be entrained by the gas flow, as justified by Stokes numbers
Stk< 10−2 , thus the Nusselt number for a sphere is Nu=2 [44] and eq. (7.2) simplifies
to:
ρs · cp,s · D2
τconv = (7.3)
12 · kg
The resulting τconv is comparable to τflow for 100 µm particles. The energy conserva-
tion equation is therefore solved for each phase separately. Finally, the temperature
T of a particle homogenously irradiated is described as a function of time by:
πD3 ρs cp,s ∂T
= πD2 σ T∞
4
− T4
· (7.4)
6 ∂t
7.2. Governing Equations 79
∇ · (ρ · u) = 0 (7.7)
where the radiation source φrad is given by the negative divergence of the radiative
flux −∇ · qr , the convection source φconv is given by the convective heat exchange
between the two phases, and the chemistry source φchem account for enthalpy carried
by mass changing its phase. Steady-state energy conservation for the gas phase
yields,
∇ · (ρg hg · u) = φconv + φchem (7.10)
80 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
Energy source for convection Convective heat transfer between the polydis-
perse solid and gas phases is described by Newton’s law of cooling [44] as the sum
of each particle’s contribution:
h · πD2
P
Np
φconv = (Ts − Tg ) (7.11)
V
Np π R∞
further using h = Nu · kg /D and fV = 6V 0
f D3 dD leads to:
R∞
6 · fV · Nu · kg 0 f D dD
φconv = R∞ (Ts − Tg ) (7.12)
0
f D3 dD
Finally, the Nusselt number for a stationary sphere is equal to 2 [44] and the defini-
tion of equivalent diameters (eq. (5.10)) is used:
12 · fV · kg
φconv = 2
· (Ts − Tg ) (7.13)
D31
Note that the rate of reaction Ri depends on the temperature of the solid phase,
Ts , the gas composition, and the particle size distribution f . At the high tem-
peratures considered, only two reactions are of importance, namely gasification
C + H2 O → H2 + CO and water-gas-shift CO + H2 O → H2 + CO2 . Equation (7.14)
can then be explicitly written as:
7.2. Governing Equations 81
where the reaction rates Ri are calculated with equations (5.18)–(5.22). Note that
the temperature field is related to the enthalpy by the implicit equation:
Z T
h (T ) = href + cp (T ) dT (7.16)
Tref
Energy source for radiation The divergence of the radiative flux is obtained
from the difference between emitted and absorbed radiation
Z ∞ Z 4π
1
∇ · qr (s) = 4π κλ (s) Iλb (s) − Iλ (s, ω) dω dλ (7.17)
λ=0 4π ω=0
Using the Planck mean absorption coefficient κP eq. (7.17) can be simplified to:
Z ∞ Z 4π
4
∇ · qr (s) = 4κP σT − κλ (s) Iλ (s, ω) dωdλ (7.18)
λ=0 ω=0
where the first term accounts for emission from the volume and the second term for
absorption in the volume. The latter is further referred to as φrad,a . The radiative
intensity Iλ , required in the second term, is given by the equation for radiative
transfer for a participating medium
Z 4π
dIλ σsλ (s)
= −βλ (s) Iλ (s) + κλ (s)Iλb + Iλ (s, ωic ) Φλ (ω, ωic ) dωic (7.19)
ds 4π ωic =0
solved by Monte-Carlo raytracing (see Section 7.3.1). Note that the solution of
eq. (7.19) in a bounded simulation domain also indirectly yields values for the radia-
R∞ R∞
tive power absorbed on the walls 0 q̇ic,λ λ dλ and by the window 0 q̇ic,λ Aw,λ dλ,
as introduced in eqs (5.1) and (5.6), respectively.
82 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
Figure 7.1: Axis-symmetric model domain, featuring five concentric cylindrical com-
partments. Indicated are also the boundary and inlet conditions. The grid spacing in
x-direction is adapted to the expected temperature gradients, shown is an example
for the Monte-Carlo solver.
The simulation domain and the main boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 7.1.
Preliminary CFD simulations showed an axis-symmetric flow pattern with negligible
radial velocity components. However, in order to account for the radial dependency
of the incoming solar radiation (see Fig. 5.2), the domain is subdivided into con-
centric cylindrical compartments, as indicated in Figs 7.1 and 7.2, where a typical
finite volume is described. As shown is Section 7.1 advective heat transport is of sec-
ondary importance. Thus, a two-phase fluid flow with neglected angular and radial
components of the velocity vector is assumed. This simplification further enables
to better elucidate the physical phenomena involved in the interaction of radiation
with the chemical reacting flow. The homogenous grid spacing in the radial di-
rection (number of compartments) is equal for both, the MC and the CFD solver.
In contrast, the grid spacing in the x-direction is adapted to the requirements of
each solver separately. Each volume element is considered isothermal (each phase
separately), with homogenously distributed species and particle size fractions. The
following boundary/initial conditions and material properties are set:
7.3. Numerical Implementation 83
advection
compartment j+1 Sj+1 radiation
compartment j Sj P D, T, fV
u, ½, Yi, h
w e
Figure 7.2: Typical finite volume considered in the simulation with faces ‘w’ and ‘e’,
centerpoint ‘P’, finite length ∆x, and cross-section Sj . Also shown are the respective
face-centered and cell-centered variables. Advection is solved in x-direction for each
compartment j separately, whereas radiative exchange is considered along both, the
x and the r directions.
• Concentrated solar radiation The angular and radial distribution of the in-
coming radiation were presented in Section 5.1.1. The spectral distribution is
approximated by Planck’s blackbody emission at 5780 K.
• Quartz window Spectral values for the transmittance, absorptance and re-
flectance of the window, as well as the overall heat transfer coefficient for
conduction/convection losses were given in Section 5.1.3. In contrast to the
experimental reactor, where the window is mounted on a diverging frustum
away from the aperture, in the model the window is located at the aperture
for two reasons: (1) the radiation BC is given at the aperture and (2) the com-
putational domain is reduced. This simplification does not affect the results
since no radiation-particle interactions occur in the diverging frustum.
• Reactor walls Overall heat transfer coefficients for conduction in the walls as
well as radiative properties were given in section 5.1.2. The walls are considered
diffuse gray ( = 0.8) due to particle deposition (visual observations). The
impact of the uncertainty of on the results was assessed by sensitivity analysis
84 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
• Solid particles Petrozuata delayed coke was used as feedstock (Chapter 2).
Particles size distribution and radiative properties were given in Section 5.2.
Equivalent monodisperse diameters were used to describe the changing prop-
erties of the polydisperse medium as a consequence of the chemical reaction.
Reaction kinetics were presented in Section 5.3.
qray>qmin qray>qmin
no
yes yes
compute compute
reflection face is scattering
direction boundary? direction rs
compute absorption
ray starting yes by the solid phase:
point Ea,s(ωλ)
= compute absoption
intersection at the boundary update qray
with
boundary update qray
qray>qmin yes
yes qray>qmin no
Figure 7.3: Flowchart of the Monte-Carlo raytracer used the calculate the radiative
source term in a domain composed of finite volumes. Note that the volumes are
delimited by either interfacial faces or/and domain boundaries. Computation steps
that involve one or several random numbers are show by the bold boxes.
86 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
numbers R drawn from a uniformly distributed set between 0 and 1. The sum of
all ray’s interactions with the two phase medium and the walls yields then a spatial
distribution of absorbed radiation:
P
rays Ea,wall
q̇ic = (7.21)
P S
rays Ea,volume
φrad,a = (7.22)
V
where Ea,wall and Ea,volume describe each ray’s contribution to the power absorbed
on a wall element dS and in a volume element dV , respectively. The simulation
domain shown in Fig. 7.1 is dived in hexahedral elements; due to the rotational
symmetry of both the flow field and the radiative BC only a slice of the reactor
is considered, while the cutting planes are modeled as perfect reflecting mirrors.
Figure 7.3 shows the flowchart of the Monte-Carlo approach used [113, 24, 119].
Rays are generated by emission from the walls and the volumes (gas and solid phase)
as well as by transmission through the window (incident q̇solar ). Each ray is described
by its power qray , wavelength λ, starting point and direction r. A ray traveling in
a volume dV can undergo four different interactions: (1) continuous absorption in
the gas phase, (2) local absorption and scattering in the solid phase, (3) absorption,
reflection and transmission on a wall element dS and (4) transmission to the adjacent
volume element. For each absorption interaction the ray’s power is diminished by
the amount Ea related to local radiative properties. The ray history is terminated
0
P
when the residual power qray = qray − Ea is smaller than the cutoff power qmin or
when it leaves the reactor through the window. Note that the treatment of radiation
absorption in the gas phase is presented for completeness, although it is neglected
in the simulation results presented later on. The equations describing the behavior
of the above mentioned interactions are divided into three groups.
Interaction with a wall The total power of the rays emitted from a wall element
is given by:
4
E = S · (T ) σTwall (7.23)
where is the total emissivity of the surface. The ray starting points are homoge-
nously distributed on the surface element dS while the direction of the emitted rays
is given by the azimuthal angle θ and the circumferential angle φ related to the face
7.3. Numerical Implementation 87
φ = 2 · π · Rφ (7.24)
Rθ R∞ 0 0 0
2π 0 0
λ (λ, θ ) Iλb (λ, Twall ) sin θ cos θ dλ dθ0
Rθ = 4
(7.25)
σTwall
where λ (λ, θ) is the spectral directional emissivity of the surface. The wavelength
λ of the emitted ray is given by [91]:
Rλ R π/2
2π 0
Iλb (λ0 , Twall ) 0
λ (λ0 , θ) sin θ cos θ dθ dλ0
Rλ = 4
(7.26)
σTwall
The power absorbed by the wall when hit by a ray is given by Ea = qray · λ (λ, θ).
The direction of the reflected ray, which carries the remaining power qray − Ea , is
either calculated with eqs (7.24) and (7.25) for a diffuse surface or by rreflected =
r − 2 (r · n) n for a perfectly specular surface while λ does not change.
Interaction with a window The window is treated similarly to the walls. The
spectral directional emissivity λ (λ, θ) is simply substituted for the spectral direc-
tional absorptance Aw (λ, θ) of the window when calculating emission and absorp-
tion. The amount of power reflected is calculated with the spectral directional
reflectance of the window Rw (λ, θ). In addition, radiation incident from the outside
of the domain is considered. The radial, directional and spectral distribution of the
incident solar power is given in Section 5.1.1. A part of the solar power is absorbed
and reflected (q̇solar · Aw (Tsun ) and q̇solar · Rw (Tsun )). The remaining power enters
the cavity while the angular distribution shown in Fig. 5.3 is weighted by Tr w (λ, θ)
calculated with eq. 5.3.
Interaction with a volume The gas and particulate phases are assumed perfectly
mixed and homogeneous over the whole volume. The total emitted power is given
by:
E = Eg + Es = 4V · κP,g (Tg ) · σTg4 + κP,s (Ts ) · σTs4
(7.27)
R∞
where κP is the Planck mean absorption coefficient defined as 0 κλ Eλb dλ/σT 4 and
the absorption coefficient κλ of the solid phase is given in Section 5.2. The emission
88 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
Figure 7.4: Typical volume element used in the MC solver. A ray emitted from a
boundary face (gray) with initial power qray and wavelength λ undergoing absorption
and scattering is shown (dotted arrow). The participating medium is described by
κλ,g , κλ,s , and σsλ,g the absorption coefficients for the gas and solid phase, and the
scattering coefficient of the solid phase.
direction is given by
φ = 2 · π · Rφ (7.28)
θ = cos−1 (1 − 2 · Rθ ) (7.29)
ray-particle
interaction
ray
ln
¯1 ¯2 ¯n
L1 L2 ... Ln
Figure 7.5: Schematic of a ray passing trough several elements of width Ln and
extinction coefficient βn . Also shown is the residual penetration length ln in the last
element.
where the extinction coefficient βλ,s = κλ,s +σsλ,s of the solid phase is given in Section
5.2. For a homogenous volume, eq. (7.31) simplifies to l = − ln (Rl ) /βλ,s . The power
absorbed by the gas phase along distance l is then given by:
while the power absorbed by the solid phase at a distance l from the emission point
is expressed as [113]:
Ea,s = qray (1 − ωλ ) (7.33)
where the scattering albedo ωλ is defined as ωλ = σsλ,s / (κλ,s + σsλ,s ). Finally, the
direction of the ray after scattering is given by:
1 θ
Z
Rθ = Φ (θ0 ) sin θ0 dθ0 (7.34)
2 0
φ = 2πRφ (7.35)
where θ is the angle between the forward direction of the incident ray r and the
direction of the scattered ray rs , φ is given on a plane perpendicular to r, and the
phase function Φ (θ) of the polydisperse solid phase is given in Section 5.2.
In a medium with a small extinction coefficient or when very small volumes are
considered a ray is likely to pass trough multiple volume elements before experiencing
the first interaction with the solid phase (see Fig. 7.5). In this case eq. (7.31) is solved
for piecewise constant properties. Assuming absorption in the nth element it reads
90 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
then: Z l
L1 β1 + L2 β2 + · · · + Pn−1
βn (s) ds = − ln (Rl ) (7.36)
i=1 Li
Pn−1
The remaining path length in element n, ln = l − i=1 Li is then given by:
where the numerator describes the dimensionless penetration length, − ln (Rl ), de-
creased by the sum of the optical thicknesses of the traversed layers. Note that a new
dimensionless penetration length is calculated each time that a ray hits a particle
or a wall but not when it hits a specular symmetry boundary.
(ρu)w
ue = (7.38)
ρe
A downwind scheme is used to estimate the average reaction rate Ri over the control
volume since the reaction rate has a negative exponential behavior. Best convergence
was found for Ri = 3/8 · Ri,w + 5/8 · Ri,e . The mass fraction of species i at face ‘e’
7.3. Numerical Implementation 91
is then:
(ρuYi )w + ∆x( 83 Ri,w + 58 Ri,e )
Yi,e = (7.40)
ρe u e
Energy conservation for the solid and the gas phase are treated similarly:
(ρs uhs )w + ∆x φrad − φconv − φchem
he,s = (7.41)
(ρs u)e
(ρg uhg )w + ∆x φconv + φchem
he,g = (7.42)
(ρg u)e
where the average source terms for radiation and convection are calculated by the
central scheme φrad = 0.5 (φrad,w + φrad,e ) and φconv = 0.5 (φconv,w + φconv,e ), while
the average source term for chemistry is calculated similarly to the average reaction
rate: φchem = 3/8 · φchem,w + 5/8 · φchem,e .
Equations (7.38)–(7.42) are solved iteratively for each finite volume consecutively.
The step length ∆x is adapted to ensure conversion after 8 iterations. Due to the
stiffness of the system of differential equations that describe the chemical reaction
(eqs (5.18)–(5.22)) typical finite volumes for the CFD solver are 10 times smaller
(∆x ≈ 0.1 mm) than those used by the Monte-Carlo raytracer. Furthermore, when
particles in the 1 µm range are considered, particle-gas convection becomes virtually
instantaneous (τconv τflow ) and volumes that are up to 105 smaller than those used
by the Monte-Carlo raytracer are required to ensure convergence.
Figure 7.6 shows the flowchart of the coupled simulation setup. The iterative process
is started with a guessed temperature and mass distribution inside the cavity. The
MC solver calculates then the source terms φrad,a (x) and q̇ic (x) required by the
CFD solver. The latter solves for heat and mass conservation returning values for
Tg (x), Ts (x) D32 (x) and fV (x) to the MC solver. This procedure is repeated until
the relative change in the results between two consecutive iterations is smaller than
10−5 .
Note that, because of the statistical noise, the time required to perform a single
iteration at a reasonable accuracy for the MC module is several orders of magnitude
larger than that for the CFD module. For example, a simulation with 10 com-
partments run on an Intel
R Pentium
R 4 CPU at 2.53 GHz requires 1.2 seconds
92 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
Figure 7.6: Flowchart of the coupled solver. The bold box describes the MC ray-
tracer described in Fig. 7.3.
for one iteration of the CFD module. The MC module of the same simulation —
solved on a grid composed by 1577 volume elements and 5663 faces — requires 4,
29, and 297 seconds for 104 , 105 , and 106 primary rays (each primary ray results
in approximately 150 follow-up rays until its power is completely absorbed) with a
related standard deviation for the radiative source term of 0.12, 0.04, and 0.014, re-
spectively. To some extent, this problem is alleviated by Gaussian kernel smoothing
with adaptive bandwidth. For the incident radiation on the walls, the local mean
estimator is expressed by [12]:
Pn
w (xi − x, hi ) · q̇ic,MC (xi )
q̇ic0 (x) = i=1P
n (7.43)
i=1 w (xi − x, hi ) ·
0
10
1
–1
10
Figure 7.7: Relative RMS error for the temperature and underrelaxation parameter γ
(left axis) and total emitted power, scaled by its maximal value, used as an indicator
for system convergence (right axis) as function of the iteration number i. Values for
run #12 of Campaign 1 with ξ = 32.
φi = 1 − γ i φi−1 + γ i φiMC
(7.46)
where i is the iteration step, φiMC denotes the result of the MC module (either the
source term in the volume or on the walls), and γ is the adaptive underrelaxation
factor. Initially, γ is set to γ 0 = 1 and the radiative source term is calculated
94 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
with low accuracy but quickly. The total power emitted from the volumes and
P P
the walls by the MC solver Pemit = volumes E + walls E is used to monitor the
system convergence. Once Pemit as a function of the iteration number i approaches
a constant value, convergence is reached and γ is subsequently reduced according
to:
i 0 i0 − i
γ = γ exp (7.47)
ξ
where i0 is the iteration step for the system convergence and ξ is a positive real
number. Figure 7.7 shows the development of the relative RMS error for the particle
temperature:
!2 , 0.5
Nvolumes
X Tji+1 − Tji
RMSrel = Nvolumes (7.48)
j
Tji+1
A MC simulation with only 4 · 104 primary rays results in convergence after 150
iterations, yielding a relative standard deviation of 0.11 and 0.07 for the raw and
the smoothed φirad,a , respectively. Significant increase in accuracy is accomplished by
reduction of γ beyond iteration step i0 (ξ = 32) as observed in the reduction of the
RMSrel and in the flattening out of Pemit . Alternative variance reduction techniques
used in computer graphics, as for example Quasi Monte Carlo Sampling [67, 56]
and Tiled Blue Noise Samples [38], were applied but did not enhance the simulation
results for radiative transfer calculations.
Two distinct grid convergence studies were performed to asses the discretization
error. Operational parameters of a typical run from experimental Campaign 1 were
used. In the first study grids composed by 8 concentric compartments (radial direc-
tion) and 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 elements along the axial direction were considered.
In the second study grids composed by 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 concentric compartments
and 80 elements in the axial direction were considered. Figure 7.8 shows relative
errors for XC and XH2 O as a function of subsequent grid refinement in axial direction
x and in radial direction r defined as:
|Xi − Xi,finest |
= (7.49)
Xi,finest
were Xfinest describes the result for 160 axial elements and 32 radial compartment
for studies one and two, respectively. Discretization errors smaller than 10−3 are
7.4. Results and Validation 95
XC
XH2 O
{2 ²x
10 ²r
²
{3
10
{4
10
1 2 4 8
grid refinement factor
Figure 7.8: Relative grid convergence errors in radial direction, r , and in axial
direction, x , for carbon and steam conversions at the outlet as a function of the
grid refinement factor. The grid refinement factor 1, 2, 4 and 8 corresponds to 10,
20, 40, 80 elements in x-direction and to 2, 4, 8 and 16 elements in r-direction.
obtained for grids with more than 40 elements in axial and 10 compartments in
radial direction. A grid convergence index (CGI) of 0.07% (Fs = 3) and an order
of convergence p ≈ 2 is found for the axial direction [80]. In order to account
for differing operational conditions (in particular with respect to the absorption
coefficient) the minimal grid size in axial direction is doubled to 80 elements.
Q̇ solar, kW
Q̇ solar, kW
1600 5.5
T, K
T, K
1400
5
1200 1200 4.3
T shell 4.5 T shell
1000
4 4.2
800 RMSTshell = 0.056 RMSTshell = 0.013
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
XC
XC
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
RMS = 0.2 RMS = 0.25
0 0
steam conversion steam conversion
1 1
RMS = 0.18 RMS = 0.39 measured
0.8 calculated
0.8
0.6 0.6
X H2 O
X H2 O
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17
experiment # experiment #
Figure 7.9: Numerically calculated and experimental measured data for the (a) 23
solar experimental runs of Campaign 1; and (b) 20 solar experimental runs of Cam-
paign 2, ordered by increasing Q̇solar . Shown are the average cavity and wall tem-
peratures, and the carbon and steam conversions at the outlet. Full circles indicate
numerically calculated values; open circles indicate the experimentally measured
data; the error bars indicate the propagated inaccuracy of the input parameters.
the Al2 O3 liner (eq. (6.9)). Tcavity for the numerical simulation
.P is the weighted mean
P
over all finite volumes of the cavity, Tcavity = Ti Vi ρi Vi ρi , while the lower and
upper error bars describe the 25th and 75th percentile of Ti , respectively. Steam and
7.4. Results and Validation 97
coke conversions are determined from the oxygen and carbon mass balance (Section
3.4.2). The error bars for the calculated values of XC , XH2 O and Tshell are due to
the propagated error of the input parameters, namely ±5% for the coke feeding rate
ṁcoke and ±9%
13% for the solar power input Q̇solar (Section 3.3). The relative RMS
errors between measured and calculated values are indicated (assuming unbiased
input parameters). RMS errors were 5.6%, 20% and 18% for the shell temperature
and for steam and carbon conversion in Campaign 1, and 5.4%, 25% and 39% in
Campaign 2. However, overlapping of the accuracy intervals (error bars) of cal-
culated and measured data points is observed for the majority of the experiments
(error bars for ±5% accuracy for the measured XC and XH2 O not shown in figure).
Finally, calculated temperature ranges in the cavity volume, Tcavity , are found to
be significantly higher than those experimentally estimated (based on the measured
wall temperatures), especially for Campaign 1, in which peak temperatures are ex-
pected to occur at the center of the cavity due to strong radiation absorption by the
small particles.
Table 7.1 lists the selected baseline model parameters of two typical solar ex-
Table 7.1: Baseline model parameters for two representative solar experimental runs
for Campaigns 1 and 2.
Experimental campaign # 1 2
Molar inlet flow rates ṅC , mol/min 0.254 0.102
ṅH2 2 , mol/min 0.142 0.057
ṅH2 O , mol/min 0.446 0.264
ṅAr , mol/min 0.266 0.165
Overall H2 O/C ratio - 1.76 2.6
Inlet velocity uin , m/s 0.065 0.088
Solar power input Q̇solar , kW 5.7 4.7
Static pressure p0 , Pa 105
Inlet equivalent particle diameter D30,in , µm 2.21 17.58
D32,in , µm 3.13 47.14
Reactor cross sectional area S, m2 8 · 10−3
Overall heat transfer coefficient U , W/(m2 K) 12–180
Inlet temperature Tin , K 423.15 1003.5
Surroundings temperature T∞ , K 293.15
2
Bound in feedstock
98 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
(a)
r = 0.0 m
250 2000
φrad , MW/m3
200
1500
T, K
150 r = 0.025 m
100 1000
φrad
50 Ts
Tg 500
0 {4 {3 {2 {1
10 10 10 10
x, m
(b) 5 2000
φrad
Ts
4 Tg
1500
φrad , MW/m3
3
T, K
r = 0.0 m
2 1000
r = 0.025 m
1
500
0 {4 {3 {2 {1
10 10 10 10
x, m
Figure 7.10: Numerically calculated temperatures profiles for the gaseous and solid
phases and the radiative source term along the reactor at two radial positions: center
(r = 0.0 m) and close to the wall (r = 0.025 m). The baseline parameters listed in
7.1 have been employed for (a) Campaign 1; and (b) Campaign 2.
perimental runs for each experimental campaign presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Figures 7.10 (a) and (b) show the temperature profiles for the gaseous and solid
phases and the radiative source term along the reactor calculated for the baseline
parameters listed in Table 7.1 at two radial positions: center (r = 0.0 m) and close
7.4. Results and Validation 99
to the wall (r = 0.025 m). Note that the x-axis scale is logarithmic for a bet-
ter appreciation of the rapid heating rate — of the order of 105 K/s — across the
first centimeters after the inlet plane, where particles reach temperatures of 2144
and 1861 K for Campaigns 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, very efficient radiative
heat transfer to the reactants is attained by direct concentrated irradiation of the
gas-particle flow. Temperatures peak after 1 and 5 cm for Campaigns 1 and 2,
respectively, and decrease toward the rear of the reactor as a result of the endother-
mic reaction and conductive heat losses. As expected from the time scales τconv and
τrad , the temperature difference between the solid and gas phases is almost zero for
Campaign 1 with smaller particles, and less than 50 K for Campaign 2 with bigger
particles. The mean temperature of the metallic shell Tshell is in the range 1108–
1301 K and significantly below that of the coke particles because of the Al2 O3 liner
and because the particle suspension serves as a radiation shield, as corroborated
experimentally in a similar gas-particle reactor configuration [110]. The radiation
source term undergoes a fast decrease as the reactants flow along the reactor because
of two phenomena: (1) the absorption coefficient of the particle suspension rapidly
decreases with increasing temperatures due to volumetric expansion and particle
shrinkage as the reaction progresses and (2) the mentioned increase of the particle
temperatures leads to strong emission thus lowering the net radiative source term.
A strong radial temperature gradient is induced by the angular and radial distribu-
tion of the incoming solar radiation. But this gradient disappears after approx. 10
cm behind the aperture as a result of absorption by the particles and emission from
particles and walls.
The progress of the chemical reaction is shown in Figs 7.11 (a) and (b), where the
variation of the chemical composition (chemical species’ molar fractions) is plotted
along the reactor at two radial positions: center (r=0.0 m) and close to the wall
(r=0.025 m). The baseline parameters of Campaigns 1 and 2, listed in Table 7.1,
were employed. Note that the x-scale is shown linear — and not logarithmic as
in Figs 7.10 (a) and (b) — because the chemical reaction rates are significantly
slower than the radiative heat transfer rates. Main product gas components are
H2 and CO, with less than 5% CO2 , as predicted by thermodynamic equilibrium
[101]. Simultaneous fast pyrolysis and steam-gasification occurs immediately after
the entrance of the reactor. The conversion of steam and petcoke is significantly
lower close to the walls (r=0.025 m) as a result of the relatively low temperatures
existing there. In addition, the reaction rates decrease toward the exit of the reactor,
100 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
(a) 0.5
r = 0.0 m
H2 O r = 0.025 m
0.4
0.3 H2
CO
yi
0.2
0.1 CO2
C
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
x, m
(b) 0.5
r = 0.0 m
r = 0.025 m
0.4
H2 O
0.3
H2
yi
0.2 C
CO
0.1
CO2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
x, m
Figure 7.11: Variation of the chemical composition (chemical species’ molar frac-
tions) along the reactor at two radial positions: center (r = 0.0 m) and close to the
wall (r = 0.025 m). The baseline parameters listed in 7.1 have been employed for
(a) Campaign 1; and (b) Campaign 2.
0.75
0 0.5
0.99
0.25
0.96 0.98
r, m 0.5 0.75 0.9
-0.05
T, K
0.05
2050
1850
1900
0 1950 1800
2000
-0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
x, m
0 0.95
0.9
0.2 0.6 0.8
r, m
-0.05
T, K
0.05
1250
1000 1700 1650
1725
1600
0
1500
-0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
x, m
Figure 7.12: 2D contour map of the carbon conversion XC and reaction rate dXC /dt
(upper plot) and corresponding temperatures (lower plot). The baseline parameters
listed in 7.1 have been employed for (a) Campaign 1; and (b) Campaign 2.
This is also corroborated in the 2D contour maps of Figs 7.12 (a) and (b), showing
the reaction rate dXC /dt and the carbon conversion XC in the upper plot — scaled
with its maximal value — and the corresponding temperature profiles in the lower
plot. In Campaign 1, the peaks for the temperature (> 2050 K) and for the reaction
102 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
rate 1.4 · 105 1/s are pronounced and located within the first centimeters past the
inlet plane, followed by a decrease to 1800 K and 6 · 10−6 1/s toward the exit of
the reactor. In Campaign 2, a more uniform temperature and reaction rate field is
observed, with maximum values attained 5 cm after the inlet plane. The difference
between the two campaigns is attributed to the differences in the particle sizes of
their feedstock. The smaller particles used in Campaign 1 have a higher absorption
coefficient, as observed from Fig. 5.11, augmenting radiative heat transfer at the
entrance region but preventing radiation to penetrate deeper into the rear of the
cavity. The smaller H2 O/C molar ratio and, consequently, the higher solid volume
fraction, further contribute to this effect. For example, at the location of maximum
temperature the solid volume fractions are 1.83 · 10−5 and 9.75 · 10−6 for Campaigns
1 and 2, respectively, and the corresponding absorption coefficients are 13.3 and 0.28
1/m, respectively. At the exit of the reactor, after condensing the unreacted and
excess H2 O, the molar composition of the syngas was 0.66 H2 / 0.25 CO/ 0.09 CO2
for Campaign 1 and 0.68 H2 / 0.21 CO/ 0.11 CO2 for Campaign 2, which compares
well with the gas composition measured experimentally.
Q̇solar is the input parameter with the strongest impact on the output, especially on
XC for both campaigns. For Campaign 1, increasing ṁcoke has a negative impact
on XC and Treactor . Interestingly, for Campaign 2, its impact on Tcavity is positive
because the feedstock is introduced at a much higher temperature after preheating.
Tin has a positive impact for both campaigns, but stronger for Campaign 2. An
increase in the inlet temperature compensates for the weaker radiation absorption of
7.4. Results and Validation 103
the feedstock used in Campaign 2 because it reduces the energy required to heat the
reactants to the reaction temperature and, consequently, increases the energy left to
drive the chemical reaction. The emissivity of the walls, wall , was found to generally
have a marginal impact on the reactor performance. As expected, the sensitivity to
wall is higher for Campaign 2, because — due to less efficient radiation absorption
by the particles — more radiation is incident directly on the walls. Finally, the
convective heat transfer coefficient at the window, hw , was found to have negligible
impact on the reactor performance.
104 7. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Reactor Cavity
Chapter 8
In the first part of this thesis a solar chemical reactor was designed and a 5 kW
prototype was fabricated and experimentally demonstrated for steam-gasification of
petroleum coke (petcoke) in a high-flux solar furnace. The present chapter focuses
on the optimization and scale-up aspects of such a high-temperature chemical reac-
tor. The tool employed is the two-phase reactor model based on the fundamental
analysis of heat and mass transfer in a directly-irradiated suspension of reacting par-
ticles presented in Chapter 7. Simulations are carried out to determine the optimal
process parameters of the 5 kW prototype reactor and that of the up-scaled 300 kW
reactor. Special emphasis is placed on the feedstock characteristics and the reactor
geometrical configuration, and their effect on the extent of carbon conversion and
solar energy conversion efficiency.
Table 8.1: Baseline operational parameters for the two reactors analyzed.
tangential injection
nozzles
Figure 8.1: Scheme of the up-scaled chemical reactor configuration for the solar
steam-gasification of coke, featuring a continuous gas-particle vortex flow confined
to a cavity receiver and directly exposed to concentrated solar radiation.
frustum was substituted for a ceramic cone. Furthermore, the thickness of both, the
insulation and the reactor liner were significantly increased to reduce heat losses by
conduction and in order to lower thermal loads on the reactor shell.
The solar spectrum of the incoming radiation is approximated by Planck’s black-
8.2. Results 107
body emission at 5780 K. Figure 5.2 shows the solar power through the aperture as
a function of the aperture’s radius for (a) PSI’s solar furnace, and (b) CIEMAT’s
solar tower. Shown in Figures 5.3 is the angular solar flux distribution at the aper-
ture, used as input to the solar reactor. Spectral values for total transmittance,
reflectance, and absorptance of the 3 mm-thick quartz window are presented in
Fig. 5.7. The overall heat transfer coefficient U , calculated by a FE-solver with
thermal conductivities provided by the manufacturer (Section 5.1.2) ranges from 12
W/m2 K at the center of the cavity to 180 W/m2 K close to the aperture due to
heat bridges for Synpet5, and averages 10 W/m2 K for Synpet300. The inlet tem-
perature Tin is set to 573 K and 773 K for Synpet5 and Synpet300, respectively,
corresponding to an augmented pre-heating of the feedstock for the up-scaled re-
actor. Petrozuata Delayed petroleum coke is employed as a feedstock (Table 2.2).
Most of the optimization calculations were performed with monodisperse particle
clouds with diameters in the range 0.5–1000 µm. In addition, for the purpose of
comparison with the experimental results, three polydisperse particle clouds were
considered: type 1, obtained by subsequent ball and jet milling; type 3, obtained by
80 m-screen sieving; and type 5, the raw feedstock as received from the refinery (see
Table 2.1). Figure 2.2 shows the volume density distribution for the three types of
particles, as determined by laser scattering (Horiba LA950). Mean initial diameters
are 2.21, 17.58 and 40.0 µm for types 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Finally, for the
purpose of computational speedup, convection between the two phases is assumed
instantaneous (Tg =Ts ) and eqs (7.9) and (7.10) simplify to:
In fact, as observed in Fig. 7.10, the temperature difference between the gas and
solid phase vanishes after the initial heating-up, thus having a negligible impact on
the carbon conversion XC at the outlet of the reactor.
8.2 Results
The baseline simulation parameters used for all calculations are listed in Table 8.1.
The effect of varying four parameters was examined: 1) particle size, 2) feeding rate,
3) input power, and 4) geometry of the cavity’s longitudinal section at a constant
cavity volume. The reactor performance is characterized by the extent of feedstock
108 8. Optimization and Scale-up
and by the solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency ηchem , defined as the portion
of solar energy input stored as chemical energy (eq. (3.7)):
Particle size Figure 8.2 shows (a) the temperature profiles (average values in the
radial direction), and (b) reaction extents along the reactor axis. The calculation was
performed for the baseline parameters of Synpet5 and with monodisperse particle
clouds of initial diameters 0.57, 0.96, 4.6, 62 and 176 µm, corresponding to curves 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Small particles induce a high volumetric absorption of the
incoming solar radiation, resulting in extremely fast heating rates of 2.9 · 105 K/s,
but at the expense of preventing further penetration of radiation into the cavity.
(a) (b)
2000 1
3
3
1800 0.8 2
1600 4 1
0.6
T, K
XC
2
1400 4
5 0.4
1
1200
0.2 5
1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
x, m x, m
Figure 8.2: (a) Temperature profiles (average values in the radial direction), and
(b) reaction extents along the reactor axis, for the baseline parameters of Synpet5
(Table 8.1) and with monodisperse particles of initial diameters 0.57, 0.96, 4.6, 62,
and 176 µm, corresponding to curves 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively.
8.2. Results 109
(a) (b)
ṁcoke /ṁcoke,baseline ṁcoke /ṁcoke,baseline
1 1
0.5
0.5
0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0
0.6 2.0 0.6
XC
XC
2.0
0.4 0.4
4.0
0.2 0.2 4.0
0 type 1 type 3 type 5 0 type 1 type 3 type 5
0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 200 2 4 10 40 100 400
D, µm D, µm
Figure 8.3: Reaction extent at the exit of the reactor as a function of the feedstock’s
initial particle diameter for (a) Synpet5, and (b) Synpet300. Curves are plotted for
coke and water feeding rates corresponding to 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times the baseline
values of Table 8.1. Indicated are the equivalent diameters for the polydisperse
feedstock types 1, 3, and 5.
This effect of shadowing is clearly visible for curves 1 and 2. For example, 0.57
µm particles peak at 1920 K in the first centimeter followed by rapid decrease to
1150 K toward the rear of the cavity, leading to a reaction rate slow down. In
contrast, bigger particles absorb the incident radiation only partially, resulting in
slower heating and lower peak temperatures, as observed for curves 4 and 5. For
example, 176 µm particles are heated at 2.1 · 103 K/s and peak at 1670 K after
12 cm from the entrance of the reactor. Curve 3 corresponds to a more uniform
distribution of the radiative absorption over the cavity volume, leading to higher
and more homogenously distributed temperatures, an thus to peak values for XC at
the reactor’s outlet.
Figure 8.3 shows the reaction extent at the exit of the reactor as a function of
the feedstock’s initial particle diameter for (a) Synpet5, and (b) Synpet300. Curves
are plotted for coke and water feeding rates corresponding to 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times
the baseline values of Table 8.1. For maximum XC , optimal particle diameters
in the range 2–7 µm were obtained for Synpet5, and in the range 11–35 µm for
Synpet300 because of the larger cavity dimensions. Also indicated are the equivalent
110 8. Optimization and Scale-up
diameters D32 for the polydisperse feedstock types 1, 3, and 5. Synpet5 exhibits good
performance with feedstock types 1 and 3, whereas types 3 and 5 are better suited
for Synpet300. Carbon conversions up to 65% and 99% are predicted for Synpet5
and Synpet300, respectively, using feedstock type 5.
Feeding rate Figure 8.4 shows the reaction extent and solar-to-chemical energy
conversion efficiency as a function of the coke mass flow rate (normalized to the
baseline rate) for the three feedstock types 1, 3, and 5, and for (a) Synpet5; and
(b) Synpet300. Also indicated (solid curve) are the results for the optimal initial
particle diameters, as determined in Figure 8.3. In both (a) and (b) cases, complete
reaction extent is achieved for very low feeding rates (ṁcoke /ṁcoke,baseline < 0.39
and < 0.57 for Synpet5 and Synpet300, respectively) at the expense of low energy
conversion efficiency. A moderate increase of the feeding rate to about 1.1 times
ṁcoke,baseline results in an increase in ηchem coupled to a slight decrease in XC . In this
case, the available heat is used efficiently to run the chemical reaction. A further
increase of ṁcoke leads to a drop of the temperatures inside the reactor because of
(a) (b)
optimal D optimal D
1 type 1 1 type 1
type 3 type 3
XC type 5 15 XC type 5
0.8 0.8
25
ηchem, %
ηchem, %
0.6 10 0.6 20
XC
XC
Figure 8.4: Reaction extent (left axis) and solar-to-chemical energy conversion ef-
ficiency (right axis) as a function of the coke mass flow rate (normalized to the
baseline rate) for (a) Synpet5; and (b) Synpet300. The feedstock types are 1, 3, and
5. The solid line is for optimal initial particle diameters in the range 2-7 and 11-35
µm for Synpet5 and Synpet300, respectively.
8.2. Results 111
the heat consumed to heat the reactants, with a consequent decrease of both XC and
ηchem . Optimal feeding rates are in the 0.06–0.4 kg/h range and 17–44 kg/h range
for Synpet5 and Synpet300, respectively. As a consequence of the advantageous
volume-to-surface ratio for the scaled-up reactor and of its lower conduction losses
through a thicker insulation, ηchem can be more than doubled. Values of 10% and
24% are predicted for Synpet5 and Synpet300, respectively.
Input solar power Figure 8.5 shows the (a) solar-to-chemical energy conversion
efficiency, and (b) syngas yield as a function of input solar power for Synpet300 using
feedstock type 5. The syngas composition is characterized by H2 /CO molar ratios
in the range 2.6–9.7 and CO2 /CO molar ratios in the range 0.6–3.2. The dotted,
dash-dotted, and dashed lines represent the performance for selected reaction extents
of 0.8, 0.95, and 0.99, respectively. The solid curve in both figures represents the
locus of maximum ηchem and the corresponding reaction extents (Fig. 8.5a) and
petcoke feeding rates (Figure 8.5b). Evidently, higher XC is obtained at the cost of
(a) (b)
60 72
0.77 ṁcoke , kg/h
XC 0.75
25
0.71 50
0.64 58
20 CO
40
ηchem, %
ṁ, kg/h
15 0.52 30 45
10 20 H2
optimal
XC = 0.8 31
5 XC = 0.95 10
17
XC = 0.99
0 0
200 300 400 500 600 200 300 400 500 600
Q̇solar , kW Q̇solar , kW
Figure 8.5: Solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency (a), and syngas yield (b),
as a function of input solar power for Synpet300 using feedstock type 5. The dotted,
dash-dotted, and dashed lines represent the performance for selected reaction extents
of 0.8, 0.95 and 0.99, respectively. The solid curve in both figures represents the
locus of maximum ηchem . Indicated are selected corresponding values of XC in (a)
and ṁcoke in (b).
112 8. Optimization and Scale-up
lower ηchem . For example, for Q̇solar =464 kW (spring equinox), ṁcoke =35 kg/h, and
XC =95% yields ṁH2 =9.1 kg/h and ṁCO =39.8 kg/h at ηchem =20% (H2 /CO=3.2 and
CO2 /CO=0.8). An analogous calculation performed for feedstock type 3 yielded, as
expected, superior performance: ηchem =24%, ṁH2 =10.8 kg/h and ṁCO =46.4 kg/h
for ṁcoke =41 kg/h (H2 /CO=3.3 and CO2 /CO=0.9). However, feedstock type 3
requires an additional processing step.
Geometry The seven cavity cross-sections shown in Fig. 8.6 were examined for
(a) Synpet5 and (b) Synpet300, where the radius and the length of the reactor are
varied while the cavity volume is kept constant; The geometries are labeled from
‘–3’ to ‘3’, corresponding to radii from 9.4 to 2.5 cm and overall reactor lengths
from 9.5 to 90 cm for Synpet5, and to radii from 121 to 25 cm and overall reactor
lengths from 71 to 686 cm for Synpet300. ‘0’ corresponds to the baseline design
shape of Synpet5 and Synpet300. Figure 8.7 shows the contour map of reaction
extents as a function of geometry and particle diameter for the baseline parameters
listed in Table 8.1 and for (a) Synpet5 and (b) Synpet300. Interestingly, Fig. 8.7a
(a)
–3 –2
0.1 –1 0 1 2 3
r, m
0
–0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
x, m
(b)
–3
1 –2
–1 0
1 2 3
r, m
–1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x, m
Figure 8.6: Reactor cross-sections of constant volume where geometry ‘0’ corre-
sponds to the baseline dimensions (Table 8.1).
8.2. Results 113
(a)
50
0.6
0.75
20
10 0.9 0.85
D, µm 5 0.9
XC 0.94
2 0.85
1
0.4 0.6 0.75
0.5
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
geometry #
(b)
100
0.5 0.75
50 0.85
0.9
20
D, µm
0.25 0.94
10
5
0.1
2 XC
1
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
geometry #
Figure 8.7: Contour maps of reaction extent as a function of geometry (see Fig. 8.6)
and particle diameter for the baseline parameters listed in Table 8.1 and for: (a)
Synpet5, and (b) Synpet300.
shows two local maxima. The first, located at D = 5 µm for geometry #–1, is due
to a minimum in the conductive heat losses — 56% compared to a maximum of
62% of Q̇solar —, while the radiative losses stay constant at 19% of Q̇solar . Since
geometry #–1 approaches a sphere, it has the smallest surface-to-volume ratio. A
second maximum is found at D = 2 µm for geometry #3, as the cavity’s radius
114 8. Optimization and Scale-up
approaches the aperture’s radius. In this case, all injected particles are exposed to
the peak flux and reach up to 2090 K compared to 1922 K for the first maximum.
As a consequence, the chemical reaction rate is faster and takes place in the 1st
half of the reactor. Conduction losses become less important (37% of Q̇solar ) due to
the somewhat lower wall temperatures in the 2n d half of the reactor, as products
exit at 582 K compared to 1743 K for the first maximum. In contrast, re-radiation
losses increase dramatically (48% of Q̇solar ) due to the high temperatures reached
in the front of the cavity. Figure 8.7b shows one maximum located at D = 8 µm
between geometry #2 and #3. In contrast to the calculations performed for Synpet5
(Fig. 8.7a), Synpet300 does not show a second maximum as it approaches a spherical
geometry because, due to the increased insulation thickness, conduction losses play
a lesser role.
Chapter 9
Conclusions
This thesis work was performed in the framework of a joint project between the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH) and the Paul Scherrer Insti-
tut in Villigen (PSI), both in Switzerland, the national research center ‘Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas’ in Spain (CIEMAT)
and the research and development center of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA
/ INTEVEP). The main goal of the still-ongoing project is the development and
demonstration of a process and of the related technology required for the produc-
tion of high quality syngas from carbonaceous materials using a solar thermochemical
process. ETH’s and PSI’s working packages included six tasks: (1) chemical thermo-
dynamics analysis, (2) second-law (exergy) analysis, (3) chemical kinetics analysis,
(4) engineering design and operation of a 5 kW prototype reactor (Synpet5), (5)
engineering design of the scaled-up 300 kW reactor (Synpet300) and (6) heat and
mass transfer modeling. Tasks (1)–(3) were performed by D. Trommer in a first PhD
Thesis [100], whereas tasks (4)–(6) were treated in the present thesis; main foci were
the Synpet5 experimental results and the modeling of both, Synpet5 and Synpet300.
The engineering design, fabrication, and testing of both reactors was the result of a
joint effort at the Professorship of Renewable Energy Carriers in cooperation with
the project partners.
high-flux solar furnace were performed for three distinct feedstock types. Coke
particles where either fed as dry powder (mean particle diameter 2.2 µm) or mixed
with water to form a slurry (mean particle diameter in the range 8.5–200 µm).
Vacuum residue was liquefied prior to injection. The reactor was operated smoothly
for approximately 100 experiments, each one lasting around one hour, yielding 64
valid experimental runs presented in Part I of this thesis. Best reactor performances
were measured for dry coke feeding, with carbon conversions of up to 87%, solar-
to-chemical energy conversion efficiencies up to 9%, typical reactor temperatures
above 1600 K and mean residence times around 1 second. The somewhat lower
values obtained for slurry and vacuum residue were caused by non-optimal feeding
systems, because the original reactor was designed for dry coke powder, not by
intrinsic drawbacks of these feedstock types. In fact, the design of the scaled-up
reactor foresees the use of coke-water slurries, which will facilitate feedstock handling
and control at large scales. The quality of the syngas produced was comparable to
the one typically obtained when heat is supplied by internal combustion. In general,
results indicate the technical feasibility of pyrolysing and steam-gasifying various
carbonaceous materials with concentrated solar energy.
coke and water conversion, and gas composition at the reactor outlet agreed well
with those obtained in the two experimental campaigns run with coke. The differ-
ent particle size distributions of the feedstock used in the two campaigns strongly
affected the absorption coefficient and chemical kinetics, and consequently mass and
heat transfer, justifying the detailed analysis of the polydisperse medium.
Finally the latter model was use to examine the lab-scale 5 kW prototype (Syn-
pet5), and its scaled-up version of 300 kW (Synpet300). The feedstock’s particle
size, the feeding flow rates, the solar power input, and the geometry of the reactors
were varied to identify the optimal operational conditions for maximum solar-to-
chemical energy conversion efficiency. Optimal initial feedstock particle sizes were
in the range 2–7 and 11–35 µm for the 5 and 300 kW reactors, respectively. The ad-
vantageous volume-to-surface ratio of the 300 kW scaled-up reactor and its enhanced
insulation lead to an optimal coke feeding rate of 44 kg/h for an solar-to-chemical
energy conversion efficiency of 24%, resulting in a syngas yield of ṁH2 =8.8 kg/h
and ṁCO =15.6 kg/h. Moreover, the increased cavity dimensions permit the use of a
coarser feedstock to be reacted efficiently. Last, but not least, the tube-shaped cav-
ity was found to outperform the commonly employed barrel-shaped cavity, mainly
because most of the particles are directly exposed to the incoming high-flux solar
radiation.
9.3 Outlook
The scaled-up reactor designed by the ETH-team has been fabricated by CIEMAT
in 2007. The complete pilot plant is currently being assembled at the Plataforma
Solar de Almerı́a in Spain, where the Synpet300 reactor will be installed on top of
the SSPS central receiver system. The new reactor is scheduled for operation in
2008 and will mark a further milestone in the development of a new gasification
technology for the solar upgrading of low-valued carbonaceous materials. The ulti-
mate objective is the commercial implementation of a solar gasification plant with
multiple receiver/mirror fields for the operation on an industrial MW scale.
The detailed model used to simulate radiative heat transfer in polydisperse re-
acting particulate media presented in this thesis was coupled to a rather simple fluid
flow solver, as the specific operational parameters allowed several simplifications. In
a more general context it is desirable to couple the radiation solver (here developed)
to a common 3D CFD full-featured solver, as these solvers typically lack of accu-
118 9. Conclusions
rate models for the treatment of participating media. In addition, model validation
would be enhanced by improving the accuracy of the experimental input parameters
such as Q̇solar and ṁfeedstock , and by measuring also local flow properties such as gas
temperature and chemical composition in the volume. A measurement device for the
determination of gas temperatures in highly radiating environments was developed
for this purpose (Appendix A).
Part III
Appendices
Appendix A
Latin Characters
ci parameter for empirical correlations
D diameter, m
L length, m
Greek Characters
δ relative difference
Subscripts
bare unshielded thermocouple
1
This chapter has been published as: A. Z’Graggen, H. Friess, and A. Steinfeld. Gas temper-
ature measurement in thermal radiating environments using a suction thermocouple apparatus.
Measurement Science and Technology, 18:3329–3334, 2007.
122 A. Gas Temperature Measurement in Radiating Environments
furnace furnace
gas gas
Mo molybdenum, material of the thermocouple mantle
film gas film
sh shield
suc suction
tc shielded thermocouple
Dimensionless Numbers
Bi Biot number, h · L/k
Gz Graetz number, Re · Pr · D/L
Nu Nusselt number, h · D/kgas
Pr Prandtl number, µ · cp /k
Re Reynolds number, ρ · u · D/µ
A.2 Introduction
Heat and mass transfer in radiating environments is of importance in numerous
high-temperature applications. Examples are combustion flames [108], fluidized
beds [118, 55], coal-fired furnaces [32, 64, 61], and, more recently, solar thermo-
chemical processes [60, 40, 71]. Especially the analysis of radiation heat transfer in
absorbing-emitting-scattering media is often based on model approximations. The
experimental validation of the resulting temperatures in radiative equilibrium plays
therefore a fundamental role in assessing the quality of such models. Optical tem-
perature measurements have been widely applied [17], but these require optical ac-
cess through protected transparent windows, which introduce design complications.
Fluid temperatures are commonly measured by means of bare thermocouples, but
measurement errors are caused by conduction along the thermocouple and by ra-
diative exchange with the surroundings [66]. Above 1000 K, the error induced by
radiation can be of several hundred degrees when the temperature difference between
fluid and surroundings is relative large and/or when the thermocouple is not prop-
erly shielded from incoming radiation [9]. The error can be significantly reduced by
making use of shielded suction thermocouples, where the shield attenuates the detri-
mental effect of radiative heat transfer and the suction flow amplifies the beneficial
effect of convective heat transfer. Suction - also referred to as aspiration - thermocou-
A.3. Experimental Setup 123
ples have been analyzed as a function of number of shields, aspiration velocity, and
surroundings temperature [9]. Correct temperature readings can then be achieved
by increasing the suction speed until no further change is observed [50], by correction
models based on intermittent measurements [39], and by correction models based on
the estimation of the radiative and convective heat transfer [63, 116]. The aforemen-
tioned studies are limited to their specific application because they suffer from one
or more of the following constraints: (1) information about the surrounding temper-
atures is required but difficult to estimate; (2) the coefficients for convective heat
transfer are affected by high uncertainties; and, (3) relatively large suction volumes
are needed. The present study shows how to alleviate these problems and provides
a more general methodology for the estimation of the measurement accuracy which
accounts for convection, radiation, and conduction heat transfer. The apparatus
is calibrated and applied to measure gas flow temperatures in a tubular furnace
with wall temperatures in the range 623-1223 K. A corroboration is accomplished
by comparison with predictions by CFD simulations.
Lin Ltc A
Tbare thermocouples
Dsh Dtc
Tgas V̇suc
shield A
V̇in
Tsh1
Ttc
Tbare
Q̇rad Tsh2
section A-A
the gas is released to the environment via a cooling tower. For the purpose of cali-
bration, the measurement apparatus is removed from the furnace and an electrical
heating coil is applied to the first 100 mm of the lance to simulate a strong radiative
environment.
A.4. Heat Transfer Model 125
The numerical heat transfer model is based on the application of the energy conser-
vation equation to the tip of the shielded thermocouple. The domain is indicated by
the dashed box in A.2. Three heat transfer modes are considered: 1) convection from
the shield to the gas and from the thermocouple to the gas, 2) radiation between the
thermocouple and the shield, and 3) conduction at the base of the thermocouple.
The Bi number in the radial direction at the tip of the thermocouple,Bi = h·Dtc /kMo ,
has values around 10−3 , justifying the lumped parameter model for the thermocou-
ple temperature Ttc . For flow regimes with Gzsh > Gzlim , where Gzsh = DLinsh · Resh · Pr
and Gzlim ≈ 20 , the tip of the probe is in the thermal entrance region and con-
vection from the shield can be neglected [44]. The convective heat transfer at the
thermocouple tip can therefore be expressed by:
where Stc is the thermocouple’s surface exposed to the gas flow and is the av-
erage heat transfer coefficient calculated from h = Nu · kgas (Tfilm ) /Dtc , evalu-
ated at the temperature of the gas film surrounding the thermocouple tip, Tfilm =
0.5·(Tgas + Ttc ). The mean Nusselt number is derived from the empirical correlation:
where the Reynolds number at the tip of the thermocouple is given by:
The view factor from the thermocouple to the gas inlet is less than 2%. Thus,
the influence of radiation from the surroundings is neglected. The radiative heat
transfer is then estimated using the expression for diffuse radiative exchange between
concentric cylinders:
4
Stc · σ · (Tsh − T4)
Q̇rad = tc (A.4)
1 Dtc 1
tc
+ Dsh
· sh
− 1
126 A. Gas Temperature Measurement in Radiating Environments
where Tsh = 0.5·(Tsh1 + Tsh2 ) . Since the base of the thermocouple is attached to the
shield, the shield temperature is included in the conductive heat transfer calculation:
Tgas − Ttc
Q̇cond = keff · Scond · (A.5)
Ltc
where Ltc is the characteristic length, Scond is the thermocouple cross section, and
keff is the effective thermal conductivity given by the empirical correlation,
c4
Tsh − Ttc
keff = kMo (Ttc ) · c3 · (A.6)
Tsh − Tgas
1
Tgas = Ttc − · Q̇rad + Q̇cond (Tgas ) (A.8)
Stc · h̄
Table A.2: Experimental operating conditions and measurement results for the cal-
ibration of the suction thermocouple apparatus.
Table A.3: Geometrical dimensions of the suction thermocouple apparatus and ma-
terial properties for air, N2 , and Mo.
Lin m 0.01
Ltc m 0.01
Dsh m 0.004
Dtc m 0.001
sh 2 0.8
tc 2 0.8
kMo 3 W/(m · K) 138–104
kAir 4 W/(m · K) 0.024–0.084
µAir 4 kg/(m · s) 1.8 · 10−5 –4.8 · 10−5
kN2 4 W/(m · K) 0.025–0.077
µN2 4 kg/(m · s) 1.7 · 10−5 –4.5 · 10−5
2
Oxidized surfaces assumed gray for Inconel [117] and Molybdenum [99].
3
Values presented for 293 K and 1223 K [98].
4
Values presented for 293 K and 1223 K [106].
Table A.4: Parameters for the empirical correlations of the Nusselt number (c1 and
c2 in eq. (A.2)), and of the effective thermal conductivity (c3 and c4 in eq. (A.6),
and regression accuracy R2 .
c1 c2 c3 c4 R2
0.2867 0.6806 0.0779 –1.4973 0.993
15
0.2867 · Re0.6806
tc · Pr1/3
10 Nu
Gzsh /Gzlim
Gzsh /Gzlim
16
5
Nu
3 4
2
2
1
30 50 100 200 300
Retc
Figure A.3: Left axis: experimentally determined and numerically computed Nus-
selt number as a function of Reynolds number. Right axis: corresponding Graetz
numbers, normalized by Gzlim .
V̇furnace ṁfurnace V̇suc ṁsuc Tfurnace Tbare Ttc Tsh Tgas TgasCFD Retc 1/Gzsh
ln /min mg/s ln /min mg/s K K K K K K – –
5.00 93.67 0.60 11.24 623 463 451 517 406 412 41 0.0222
5.00 93.67 1.00 18.73 623 460 436 514 406 423 69 0.0133
10.00 187.34 0.50 9.37 923 609 567 708 387 352 32 0.0258
10.00 187.34 1.00 18.73 923 605 495 691 391 354 67 0.0130
10.00 187.34 1.50 28.10 923 602 471 682 395 357 102 0.0087
10.00 187.34 2.00 37.47 923 598 459 676 399 361 137 0.0066
10.00 187.34 0.50 9.37 1223 908 867 1021 435 398 26 0.0278
10.00 187.34 0.60 11.24 1223 906 829 1015 448 398 32 0.0237
10.00 187.34 1.00 18.73 1223 901 733 999 450 397 55 0.0143
10.00 187.34 1.50 28.10 1223 896 668 985 451 398 86 0.0095
10.00 187.34 2.00 37.47 1223 893 634 977 458 401 116 0.0072
numbers obtained are in the range 149-742, justifying the laminar flow assumption.
The following boundary conditions (BC) are set:
• furnace inlet: plug flow with imposed mass flow rate ṁfurnace at ambient tem-
perature 297 K;
Since gravity causes the shape of flow field to differ significantly from rotational
symmetry, only one symmetry plane is employed, which divides the domain in two
halves. The simulations are based on tetrahedral discretization meshes for one of
these half-domains. The discretization error for the computed temperatures was
found to be less than 1 K by stepwise grid refinement. The tabulated values of
TgasCFD have been derived from the raw simulation results by averaging over a circular
A.7. CFD Simulations 131
950
T, K
800
650
500
350
0.5 1 1.5 2
V̇suc , ln /min
Figure A.4: Experimental data (solid lines) and calculated gas temperatures (dashed
lines) as a function of the suction mass flow rate at a nominal furnace temperature
of 1223 and N2 mass flow rate of 10 ln /min.
disk located at the axial position of the lance inlet (195 mm from the working tube
inlet). The diameter of the disk is set equal to 0.75 · Dsh , ensuring that TgasCFD is
not affected by the temperature boundary layer belonging to the radiation shield.
The following relative temperature differences are defined:
Tbare − TgasCFD
δbare = (A.9)
TgasCFD
Ttc − TgasCFD
δtc = (A.10)
TgasCFD
Tgas − TgasCFD
δmethod = (A.11)
TgasCFD
Figure A.5 shows δbare , δtc , and δmethod as a function of the temperature of the
surroundings (Tfurncae ) and of Re at the thermocouple tip. As expected, two impor-
tant effects can be observed. Firstly, high temperatures have a detrimental effect
on the readings of the bare and the shielded thermocouples as a result of radia-
tion heat transfer. Secondly, high Re numbers have a beneficial effect on Ttc as a
result of convective heat transfer. In fact, for the limiting case of Retc → ∞, Ttc
approaches the gas temperature. The relative difference between the temperature
132 A. Gas Temperature Measurement in Radiating Environments
Table A.6: Measured temperatures of the working tube in the furnace as a function
of the axial position x, starting from the inlet. The center of the furnace as well as
the entrance of the suction thermocouple apparatus is at position x = 0.195 m.
x, m
Tfurnace , K 0.0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3
TBC , K
1223 340 340 366 425 622 1082 1278 1301 1247 773 662
923 311 325 350 400 515 846 966 981 929 653 503
623 311 321 337 370 432 555 637 663 646 513 411
0
10
120 Retc
40 80
δ
–1
10
δbare
δtc
δmethod
–2
10
650 775 900 1025 1150
Tfurnace , K
Figure A.5: Relative differences between the gas temperature simulated by CFD
(TgasCFD ) and the bare thermocouple reading (Tbare ), the shielded thermocouple read-
ing (Ttc ), and calculated gas temperature (Tgas ), at different Reynolds numbers. See
definitions of δbare , δtc , and δmethod in equations (A.9), (A.10), and (A.11), respec-
tively.
measured with the bare thermocouple and that of the gas is 12, 70, and 126% for
furnace temperatures of 623, 923, and 1223 K, respectively. For increased suction
flows, the difference is somewhat lower. For example, for Tfurnace = 923 K, δtc = 55,
36, and 29% for Re = 40, 80, and 120, respectively. The relative difference between
Tgas and TgasCFD varies from 2% to 10% for Tfurnace from 623 to 1223 K, as a result
of the approximations in the boundary conditions used for the CFD simulations.
A.8. Summary and Conclusions 133
The PSI solar concentrator does not permit the continuous online measurement of
the solar power entering the reactor trough its aperture, Q̇solar . The position of
the Venetian-blind type shutter ηshutter , defined as the ratio between the radiation
outside and behind the shutter, and solar radiation incident on the heliostat Isolar are
recorded instead. Solar power input is then calculated with the following empirical
correlation:
Q̇solar = Isolar · ηshutter · k (B.1)
where k is found from measurements taken before and after the experiments. There,
the image of the concentrated solar radiation on a diffusely reflecting target is ana-
lyzed by a calibrated CCD camera, resulting in an estimate for Q̇solar . The location
of the maximal incoming power is then identified manually and the reactor setup is
moved until this location and the aperture coincide. There are two main sources of
error in this procedure: (1) the values of k are strongly influenced by soiling of the
heliostat, the parabolic concentrator and the target. Furthermore, k is also affected
by the care of the operator that estimates Q̇solar . Typical average values for k of 8.5,
6.9 and 7.9 with a standard deviation of 12.9%, 7.9% and 7.6% were obtained for
Table B.1: Influence of the inaccurate positioning of the aperture with respect to
the focus of the parabolic concentrator (spot).
The absorption coefficient of a single spectral line for a gas at temperature T , partial
pressure p and at wavenumber ν is described by [83]:
where Sij is the temperature-dependent line intensity, f is the normalized line shape
function, which takes into account temperature and pressure correction of the line
halfwidth as well as pressure shift of the line position, and νij is the transition
wavenumber of the line considered. The spectral absorption coefficient of a gas is
then calculated as the sum of all contributions aij at wavelength λ for each line:
pNA X
κλ = aij (1/λ, T, p) (C.2)
RT lines
Figure C.1 shows results for high resolution calculations in the range 0.1-40 µm
performed for a gas mixture of 50% CO and 50% H2O and at 1800 K and 1 bar for
the 918 (CO in HITEMP) and 744061 (H2 O in HITRAN) lines in the database [83],
respectively. Also shown is the distribution of Planck’s emitted power Eλb at 5780
and 1800 K. The horizontal bars describe wavelength intervals that carry 99% of the
emitted power. Mean absorption coefficients of the gas mixture were calculated as
1
FORTRAN code used in this chapter has been programmed in the framework of: A. Camen-
zind, Spectral Radiation Properties of CO2 , CO and H2 O: Model Development and Implementa-
tion, Semester Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2004.
138 C. Radiation Absorption in the Gas Phase
5780 K H2 O
0
5
1800 K 10
eλb , W/(m2 · µm)
10
κ λ , 1/m
–5
10
0 10
CO
–5 –10
10 10
0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20
λ, µm
Figure C.1: Right axis: Absorption coefficients for CO and H2 O at 0.5 bar as a
function of the wavelength. Left axis: emissive power of a blackbody at 5780 K
and 1800 K as a function of the wavelength. 99 % of the total power is carried by
radiation in the intervals described by the horizontal bars. Solid and dotted lines
are for temperatures of 5780 K and 1800 K, respectively.
Values of approx. 0.06 and 0.006 m−1 were obtained for radiation emitted at 1800
and 5780 K, respectively. Absorption by the gas is therefore neglected vis-à-vis
absorption by the particles.
List of Figures
3.1 Scheme of the solar chemical reactor configuration used for the steam
gasification of carbonaceous materials at a power level of 5kW. The
location of the thermocouples (tc) of types K and S are indicated by
stars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Feedstock injection setup used in Campaign 1. Petcoke particles are
fed by means of a brush conveyer and further entrained by the steam
injected from four tangential nozzles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
140 List of Figures
3.5 Photograph of PSI’s high flux solar furnace. Main visible features are
the sun tracking heliostat, the Venetian-blind type shutter used to
control the incoming radiation and, inside the building, the parabolic
concentrator and the reactor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6 Main components of the experimental setup at PSI’s high flux so-
lar furnace. Three different feeding systems are shown for the three
distinct experimental campaigns performed from 2004 to 2006. . . . . 26
4.1 Temperatures, solar power input and product gas composition for a
typical run of Campaign 1 (run # 7 in Table 4.1). The dashed vertical
line indicates the start of the petcoke feeding, the two vertical dotted
lines delimit the interval considered for the steady state calculations. 34
4.2 Breakdown of the total input power into heating of the reactants
Q̇heating , chemical reaction enthalpy Q̇chem , reradiation losses Q̇rerad
and conduction losses Q̇cond for the 23 runs of Campaign 1. Also
plotted is the measured solar power input, Q̇solar with its respective
accuracy bounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Temperatures, solar power input and product gas composition for a
typical run of Campaign 1 (run # 10 in Table 4.2). The dashed verti-
cal line indicates the start of the slurry feeding, the two vertical dotted
lines delimit the interval considered for the steady state calculations. 38
4.4 Breakdown of the total input power into heating of the reactants
Q̇heating , chemical reaction enthalpy Q̇chem , reradiation losses Q̇rerad
and conduction losses Q̇cond for the 29 runs of Campaign 2. Also
plotted is the measured solar power input, Q̇solar with its respective
accuracy bounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
List of Figures 141
5.1 Simulation setup used to determine the angular and radial distri-
butions of the incoming concentrated solar radiation at PSI’s solar
furnace [34]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Solar radiative flux (left axis) and solar power (right axis) as a func-
tion of the aperture’s diameter for (a) PSI’s solar furnace, and (b)
CIEMAT’s solar tower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3 Angular distribution of the concentrated solar radiation at the aper-
ture for PSI’s solar furnace and CIEMAT’s solar tower. . . . . . . . . 53
5.4 Lines of equal projected incident solar flux q̇solar in kW/m2 on planes
parallel to the aperture. Results are given for a 50 mm aperture and
a nominal power trough the aperture Q̇solar =5 kW. Also indicated is
the shape of the prototype reactor’s cavity (gray). . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.5 Schematic of heat fluxes at the wall. Radiation emitted by particles
and other cavity wall elements, q̇ic , is incident from the inside (right),
while the wall itself emits radiation toward the inside. On the outside
(left) the reactor is cooled by natural convection. Finally, conduction
occurs through the three material layers of the wall. . . . . . . . . . . 55
142 List of Figures
5.6 Overall heat transfer coefficient U for conductive losses trough the
reactor walls as a function of the location along the reactor axis. Also
indicated is the longitudinal cross-section of the reactor’s cavity. . . . 56
5.7 Complex refractive index of quartz n + ik [72] and transmittance Tr w
for a 3 mm thick window and for three selected incident directions θ
as a function of wavelength λ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.8 Schematic of heat fluxes at the window. Concentrated solar radiation
q̇solar is incident from the outside of the reactor (left) whereas radiation
emitted by the cavity walls and particles, q̇ic , is coming from the inside
(right). The window itself emits radiation on both sides. Finally, the
window is cooled by forced convection on the outside. . . . . . . . . . 58
5.9 Volume density of the polydisperse particles used in Campaigns 1
(type 1) and 2 (type 3). Solid lines are measured values for the unre-
acted samples, dashed and dashed-dotted lines are calculated results
at carbon conversions of 0.5 and 0.75, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.10 Equivalent monodisperse diameters calculated with eqs (5.10) and
(5.26) of the polydisperse particles used in Campaigns 1 (type 1) and
2 (type 3) as a function of the carbon conversion. . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.11 Spectral distribution of the absorption and scattering coefficients, cal-
culated for a typical volume fraction of 5·10−5 and carbon conversions
of 0.0, 0.5 and 0.75, for the feedstock used in (a) Campaign 1, and
(b) Campaign 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.12 Scattering phase function for the equivalent diameter D32 , for the
polydisperse medium (eq. (5.14)), and for the Henyey-Greenstein
approximation (eq. (5.15)), calculated for carbon conversions of (a)
0.0; and (b) 0.75, for the feedstock used in Campaign 1. Directions
θ = π/2 – π not shown in plot, because no backward scattering peak
was observed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1 Diagram of the considered process and it’s energy and mass flows used
in the simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 Carbon conversion (a), cavity (b) and shell (d) temperatures and
chemical efficiency (c) as a function of the carbon feeding rate and
the reactor volume for the 5 kW prototype reactor and the baseline
parameter listed in Table 6.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
List of Figures 143
7.2 Typical finite volume considered in the simulation with faces ‘w’ and
‘e’, centerpoint ‘P’, finite length ∆x, and cross-section Sj . Also shown
are the respective face-centered and cell-centered variables. Advection
is solved in x-direction for each compartment j separately, whereas
radiative exchange is considered along both, the x and the r directions. 83
7.3 Flowchart of the Monte-Carlo raytracer used the calculate the radia-
tive source term in a domain composed of finite volumes. Note that
the volumes are delimited by either interfacial faces or/and domain
boundaries. Computation steps that involve one or several random
numbers are show by the bold boxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.4 Typical volume element used in the MC solver. A ray emitted from a
boundary face (gray) with initial power qray and wavelength λ under-
going absorption and scattering is shown (dotted arrow). The par-
ticipating medium is described by κλ,g , κλ,s , and σsλ,g the absorption
coefficients for the gas and solid phase, and the scattering coefficient
of the solid phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
144 List of Figures
7.5 Schematic of a ray passing trough several elements of width Ln and ex-
tinction coefficient βn . Also shown is the residual penetration length
ln in the last element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7.6 Flowchart of the coupled solver. The bold box describes the MC
raytracer described in Fig. 7.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.7 Relative RMS error for the temperature and underrelaxation parame-
ter γ (left axis) and total emitted power, scaled by its maximal value,
used as an indicator for system convergence (right axis) as function
of the iteration number i. Values for run #12 of Campaign 1 with
ξ = 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.8 Relative grid convergence errors in radial direction, r , and in axial
direction, x , for carbon and steam conversions at the outlet as a
function of the grid refinement factor. The grid refinement factor 1,
2, 4 and 8 corresponds to 10, 20, 40, 80 elements in x-direction and
to 2, 4, 8 and 16 elements in r-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.9 Numerically calculated and experimental measured data for the (a)
23 solar experimental runs of Campaign 1; and (b) 20 solar experi-
mental runs of Campaign 2, ordered by increasing Q̇solar . Shown are
the average cavity and wall temperatures, and the carbon and steam
conversions at the outlet. Full circles indicate numerically calculated
values; open circles indicate the experimentally measured data; the
error bars indicate the propagated inaccuracy of the input parameters. 96
7.10 Numerically calculated temperatures profiles for the gaseous and solid
phases and the radiative source term along the reactor at two radial
positions: center (r = 0.0 m) and close to the wall (r = 0.025 m). The
baseline parameters listed in 7.1 have been employed for (a) Campaign
1; and (b) Campaign 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.11 Variation of the chemical composition (chemical species’ molar frac-
tions) along the reactor at two radial positions: center (r = 0.0 m)
and close to the wall (r = 0.025 m). The baseline parameters listed
in 7.1 have been employed for (a) Campaign 1; and (b) Campaign 2. . 100
7.12 2D contour map of the carbon conversion XC and reaction rate dXC /dt
(upper plot) and corresponding temperatures (lower plot). The base-
line parameters listed in 7.1 have been employed for (a) Campaign 1;
and (b) Campaign 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
List of Figures 145
8.1 Scheme of the up-scaled chemical reactor configuration for the solar
steam-gasification of coke, featuring a continuous gas-particle vortex
flow confined to a cavity receiver and directly exposed to concentrated
solar radiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
8.2 (a) Temperature profiles (average values in the radial direction), and
(b) reaction extents along the reactor axis, for the baseline parame-
ters of Synpet5 (Table 8.1) and with monodisperse particles of initial
diameters 0.57, 0.96, 4.6, 62, and 176 µm, corresponding to curves 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
8.3 Reaction extent at the exit of the reactor as a function of the feed-
stock’s initial particle diameter for (a) Synpet5, and (b) Synpet300.
Curves are plotted for coke and water feeding rates corresponding to
0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times the baseline values of Table 8.1. Indicated are
the equivalent diameters for the polydisperse feedstock types 1, 3, and
5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.4 Reaction extent (left axis) and solar-to-chemical energy conversion
efficiency (right axis) as a function of the coke mass flow rate (nor-
malized to the baseline rate) for (a) Synpet5; and (b) Synpet300. The
feedstock types are 1, 3, and 5. The solid line is for optimal initial
particle diameters in the range 2-7 and 11-35 µm for Synpet5 and
Synpet300, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8.5 Solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency (a), and syngas yield
(b), as a function of input solar power for Synpet300 using feed-
stock type 5. The dotted, dash-dotted, and dashed lines represent
the performance for selected reaction extents of 0.8, 0.95 and 0.99,
respectively. The solid curve in both figures represents the locus of
maximum ηchem . Indicated are selected corresponding values of XC
in (a) and ṁcoke in (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.6 Reactor cross-sections of constant volume where geometry ‘0’ corre-
sponds to the baseline dimensions (Table 8.1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
8.7 Contour maps of reaction extent as a function of geometry (see Fig. 8.6)
and particle diameter for the baseline parameters listed in Table 8.1
and for: (a) Synpet5, and (b) Synpet300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1 Steam and petcoke feeding rates, composition of the product gas,
nominal temperatures and performance parameters for 23 valid runs
of experimental campaign 1 conducted with dry petcoke particles. . . 36
4.2 Water and petcoke feeding rates, composition of the product gas,
nominal temperatures and performance parameters for 29 valid runs
of experimental campaign 2 conducted with a coke-water slurry. . . . 41
4.3 Steam and VR feeding rates, composition of the product gas, nom-
inal temperatures and performance parameters for 12 valid runs of
experimental campaign 3 conducted with liquefied VR. . . . . . . . . 46
4.4 Average operational parameters and results of the solar experimental
campaigns conducted with dry coke powder, cokewater slurry, and VR. 47
6.1 Baseline model parameters for the studies conducted for the 5 kW
lab scale reactor and it’s scale-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
8.1 Baseline operational parameters for the two reactors analyzed. . . . . 106
[1] S. Abanades and G. Flamant. Solar hydrogen production from the thermal
splitting of methane in a high temperature solar chemical reactor. Solar En-
ergy, 80:1321–1332, 2006. 1.3
[5] J. Ballestrı́n and R. Monterreal. Hybrid heat flux measurement system for
solar central receiver evaluation. Energy, 29:915–924, 2004. B
[7] W. H. Beattie, R. Berjoan, and J.-P. Coutures. High temperature solar pyrol-
ysis of coal. Solar Energy, 31:137–143, 1983. 1.3
[8] R. Berber and E. A. Fletcher. Extracting oil from shale using solar energy.
Energy, 13:12–23, 1988. 1.3
[15] V. L. Cabal. Climate change and European cleaner coal technology. Energy
& Environment, 14:3–15, 2003. 1
[20] H. Dinçer, F. Boylu, A. Sirkeci, and G. Ateşok. The effect of chemicals on the
viscosity and stability of coal water slurries. International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 70:41–51, 2003. 2.1.1
[21] M. Dry. The SASOL route to fuels. ChemTech, 12:744–750, 1982. 1.2
Bibliography 151
[26] M. Flechsenhar and C. Sasse. Solar gasification of biomass using oil shale and
coal as candidate materials. Energy, 20:803–810, 1995. 1.3
[27] E. Fletcher and R. Moen. Hydrogen and oxygen from water. the use of solar
energy in a one-step effusional process is considered. Science, 197:1050–1056,
1977. 1.3
[30] M. R. Gray. Upgrading Petroleum Residues and Heavy Oils. Taylor & Francis,
CRC Press, 1994. 4.3
[32] Y. Guo, C. Chan, and K. Lau. Numerical studies of pulverized coal combustion
in a tubular coal combustor with slanted oxygen jet. Fuel, 82:893–907, 2003.
A.2
152 Bibliography
[34] P. Haueter, T. Seitz, and A. Steinfeld. A new high-flux solar furnace for high-
temperature thermochemical research. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
121:77–80, 1999. 3.3, 5.1, C
[37] C. Higman and M. van der Burg. Gasification. Gulf Professional Publishing,
2003. 1.2
[38] S. Hiller, O. Deussen, and A. Keller. Tiled blue noise samples. In Vision,
Modeling, and Visualization 2001, 2001. 7.3.3
[43] J. R. Howell. Thermal radiation in participating media, the past, the present
and some possible futures. Journal of Heat Transfer, 1100:1220–1229, 1988.
7.3.1
Bibliography 153
[46] T. B. Johansson and L. Burnham. Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and
Electricity. Island Press, 1993. 1
[47] R. Kandiyoti, A. Herod, and K. Bartle. Solid Fuels and Heavy Hydrocarbon
Liquids - Thermal Characterization and Analysis. Elsevier, 2006. 1
[48] T. Kappauf and E. A. Fletcher. Hydrogen and sulfur from hydrogen sulfide-VI.
solar thermolysis. Energy, 14:443–449, 1989. 1.3
[51] S. Kim and B. E. Dale. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted
crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26:361–375, 2004. 1
[54] A. Kogan. Direct solar thermal splitting of water and on-site separation of the
products. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 23:89–98, 1998. 1.3
[57] F. Kritter. Injection system of coal water slurries for solar reactors. Master’s
thesis, ETH Zurich, 2005. 2.4, C
[59] O. Levenspiel. Chemical Reaction Engineering. Wiley, New York, 1999. 3.4.4
[68] M. F. Modest. Radiative heat transfer. Academic Press, 2003. 3.1, 5.1.3, 5.2.1,
5.2.1
Bibliography 155
[69] J. Nelder and R.Mead. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer
Journal, 7:308–313, 1965. 6.1, A.4
[74] S. V. Patankar. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation; New York, 1980. 7.3.2
[77] Plataforma Solar de Almerı́a. Annual Report 2006. CIEMAT, Spain, 2006.
8.1
[78] World Energy Council. 2007 Survey of Energy Resources. Regency House,
London, 2007. 1
[85] P. L. Russell. Oil shales of the world, their origin, occurrence and exploitation.
Pergamon Press, 1990. 1
[91] R. Siegel and J. R. Howell. Thermal radiation heat transfer. Taylor and
Francis, 2002. 5.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.3.1
[92] R. Speck. Solar petcoke gasification, indirect irradiation. Master’s thesis, ETH
Zurich, 2003. 3.1
[96] C. L. Tien. Thermal radiation in packed and fluidized beds. Journal of Heat
transfer, 110:1230–1242, 1988. 7.3.1
[102] D. Trommer and A. Steinfeld. Kinetic modeling for the combined pyrolysis
and steam-gasification of petroleum coke and experimental determination of
the rate constants by dynamic thermogravimetry in the 500-1520 K range.
Energy & Fuels, 20:1250–1258, 2006. 1.1, 4.2, 5, 5.3, 5.3
[112] P. von Zedtwitz and A. Steinfeld. The solar thermal gasification of coal - energy
conversion efficiency and CO2 mitigation potential. Energy, 28:441–456, 2003.
1, 1.3
[113] D. V. Walters and R. O. Buckius. Monte Carlo methods for radiative heat
transfer in scattering media. Annual Review of Heat Transfer, 5:131–176, 1992.
7.3.1, 7.3.1
[118] D. Xie, B. Bowen, J. Grace, and C. Lim. Two-dimensional model of heat trans-
fer in circulating fluidized beds. Part II: Heat transfer in a high density CFB
and sensitivity analysis. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
46:2193–2205, 2003. A.2
[125] A. Z’Graggen and A. Steinfeld. Heat and mass transfer analysis of a suspension
of reacting particles subjected to concentrated solar radiation — application
to the steam-gasification of carbonaceous materials. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, 2007, submitted. 1.1