Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 6, 2018

Three-Phase Reactor Model for Simulation of Methylacetylene and Propadiene Selective Hydrogenation Process

A. R. Ahmadi, F. Samimi and M. R. Rahimpour

Abstract

In this study, an effort was performed to improve methylacetylene and propadiene (MAPD) hydrogenation process with investigation of operating conditions which significantly influence the reactor performance. For this purpose, the operational parameters including concentration of components in the feedstock as well as hydrogen and diluent (recycle stream) flow rates were optimized via differential evolution (DE) technique to maximize propylene (PR) production, to minimize green oil formation as well as to control PR selectivity. Then a comparison was made between the optimized and non-optimized (design) conditions. The results indicate that in optimal conditions, PR production rate increases 5.3 ton/day, while the green oil formation as well as propane (PN) production, as unwanted byproducts are reduced to 0.05 and 0.85 ton/day in comparison with the design conditions. Reduction of undesirable byproducts and enhancement of propylene production rate, demonstrate superiority of the optimized conditions to design conditions.

References

[1] Wang B, Froment GF. Kinetic modeling and simulation of the selective hydrogenation of the C3-cut of a thermal cracking unit. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2005;44:9860–67.10.1021/ie050891pSearch in Google Scholar

[2] Teixeira M, Madeira LM, Sousa JM, Mendes A. Improving propyne removal from propylene streams using a catalytic membrane reactor–a theoretical study. J Memb Sci. 2011;375:124–33.10.1016/j.memsci.2011.03.024Search in Google Scholar

[3] Godinez C, Cabanes A, Villora G. Experimental study of the front-end selective hydrogenation of steam-cracking C2-C3 mixture. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif. 1995;34:459–68.10.1016/0255-2701(95)00602-8Search in Google Scholar

[4] Mary G, Esmaeili A, Chaouki J. Simulation of the selective hydrogenation of C3-Cut in the liquid phase. Int J Chem Reactor Eng. 2016;14:859–74.10.1515/ijcre-2015-0095Search in Google Scholar

[5] Fajardo J, Godinez C, Cabanes A, Villora G. Kinetic analysis of rate data for propylene and methylacetylene hydrogenation. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif. 1996;35:203–11.10.1016/0255-2701(95)04126-5Search in Google Scholar

[6] Wu W, Li Y-L, Chen W-S, Lai C-C. Kinetic studies and operating strategies for an industrial selective hydrogenation process. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;50:1264–71.10.1021/ie101183cSearch in Google Scholar

[7] Mousazadeh F, van Den Akker H, Mudde R. Eulerian simulation of heat transfer in a trickle bed reactor with constant wall temperature. Chem eng j. 2012;207:675–82.10.1016/j.cej.2012.07.036Search in Google Scholar

[8] Heidari A, Hashemabadi SH. CFD study of diesel oil hydrotreating process in the non-isothermal trickle bed reactor. Chem Eng Res Des. 2015;94:549–64.10.1016/j.cherd.2014.09.016Search in Google Scholar

[9] Gancarczyk A, Janecki D, Bartelmus G, Burghardt A. Analysis of the hydrodynamics of a periodically operated trickle-bed reactor—A shock wave velocity. Chem Eng Res Des. 2014;92:2609–17.10.1016/j.cherd.2014.02.033Search in Google Scholar

[10] Jakobsson K, Hasanen A, Aittamaa J. Modelling of a countercurrent hydrogenation process. Chem Eng Res Des. 2004;82:203–07.10.1205/026387604772992774Search in Google Scholar

[11] Lopes RJ, Quinta-Ferreira RM. CFD modelling of multiphase flow distribution in trickle beds. Chem Eng J. 2009;147:342–55.10.1016/j.cej.2008.11.048Search in Google Scholar

[12] Farahani HF, Shahhosseini S. Simulation of hydrodesulfurization trickle bed reactor. Chem Prod Modeling. 2011;6(1):Article 710.2202/1934-2659.1487Search in Google Scholar

[13] Srinivas B, Karthik S, Sankararao B. Optimization of Trickle-Bed reactors (TBRs) for hydrodesulfurization (HDS) and hydrodearomatization (HDA) of diesel using single and multiple objectives. Chem Prod Modeling. 2013;8:93–106.10.1515/cppm-2013-0023Search in Google Scholar

[14] Samimi F, Khadem Modarresi Z, Dehghani O, Rahimpour M R, Bolhasani A. Application of response surface methodology for optimization of an industrial methylacetylene and propadiene hydrogenation reactor. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng. 2015;46:51–64.10.1016/j.jtice.2014.09.003Search in Google Scholar

[15] Samimi F, Ahmadi A R, Dehghani O, Rahimpour M R. DE approach in development of a detailed reaction network for liquid phase selective hydrogenation of methylacetylene and propadiene in a trickle bed reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2014;54:117–29.10.1021/ie503600bSearch in Google Scholar

[16] Atta A, Roy S, Nigam K. A two-phase Eulerian approach using relative permeability concept for modeling of hydrodynamics in trickle-bed reactors at elevated pressure. Chem Eng Res Des. 2010;88:369–78.10.1016/j.cherd.2009.06.011Search in Google Scholar

[17] Highfill W, Al-Dahhan M. Liquid-solid mass transfer coefficient in high pressure trickle bed reactors. Chem Eng Res Des. 2001;79:631–40.10.1205/026387601316971208Search in Google Scholar

[18] Teodorovic D, Dell'Orco M. Bee colony optimization–a cooperative learning approach to complex transportation problems. Adv OR AI Methods Transp. 2005:51–60.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Alavi M, Eslamloueyan R, Rahimpour MR. Multi objective optimization of a methane steam reforming reaction in a membrane reactor: considering the potential catalyst deactivation due to the hydrogen removal. Int J Chem Reactor Eng. 2018;16(2):2017006610.1515/ijcre-2017-0066Search in Google Scholar

[20] Rangaiah GP. Multi-objective optimization: techniques and applications in chemical engineering. Singapore: World Scientific, 2009Search in Google Scholar

[21] Price K, Storn R. Differential evolution: A simple evolution strategy for fast optimization. Dr Dobb's j. 1997;22:18–24.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Babu B, Angira R. Modified differential evolution (MDE) for optimization of non-linear chemical processes. Comput Chem Eng. 2006;30:989–1002.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.12.020Search in Google Scholar

[23] Brest J, Greiner S, Boskovic B, Mernik M, Zumer V. Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A comparative study on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput. 2006;10:646–57.10.1109/TEVC.2006.872133Search in Google Scholar

[24] Samimi F, Kabiri S, Mirvakili A, Rahimpour M R. The concept of integrated thermally double coupled reactor for simultaneous production of methanol, hydrogen and gasoline via differential evolution method. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. 2013;14:144–57.10.1016/j.jngse.2013.06.009Search in Google Scholar

[25] Mirvakili A, Samimi F, Jahanmiri A. Optimization of ammonium nitrate thermal decomposition in a fluidized bed reactor using differential evolution (DE) method. Chem Eng Commun. 2015;202:557–68.10.1080/00986445.2013.850575Search in Google Scholar

[26] Samimi F, Bayat M, Rahimpour M R, Keshavarz P. Mathematical modeling and optimization of DME synthesis in two spherical reactors connected in series. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. 2014;17:33–41.10.1016/j.jngse.2013.12.006Search in Google Scholar

[27] Karimi M, Rahimpour MR, Rafiei R, Shariati A, Iranshahi D. Improving thermal efficiency and increasing production rate in the double moving beds thermally coupled reactors by using differential evolution (DE) technique. Appl Thermal Eng. 2016;94:543–58.10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.10.109Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-08-25
Revised: 2018-10-20
Accepted: 2018-10-23
Published Online: 2018-11-06

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston