modeling and simulation of a methanol fuel cell...
TRANSCRIPT
MODELING AND SIMULATION OF A FUEL CELL REFORMER FOR CONTROL APPLICATIONS
By
MOHUA NATH
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2007
1
© 2007 Mohua Nath
2
To my parents for their love, sacrifice and steadfast support
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this work would not have been possible without the immense
contribution of my committee, Dr. William Lear, Dr. Oscar Crisalle and Dr. James Fletcher.
They have guided, advised and encouraged me with a lot of patience and supported me in every
step during my masters program. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest
gratitude to them.
I would like to thank the most important people in my life, my parents and sister whose
faith in me have brought me here. I would also like to mention my friends Alpana Agarwal, Jaya
Das, Gaurav Malhotra, Nadeem Islam and Champak Das for being like a family to me and
creating a home away from home. A special mention goes to Daniel Betts for sharing his
knowledge of fuel cells with me and providing me with valuable suggestions.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank Rana Dutta for motivating me to make this last
leap possible. You are the light at the end of the tunnel.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................11
1.1 Fuel Cells ......................................................................................................................11 1.1.1 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells...............................................................................12 1.1.2 Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells (PEMFC).........................................................13 1.1.3 Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFC) ................................................................................14 1.1.4 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC)..............................................................15 1.1.5 Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) ........................................................................15
1.2 Hydrocarbons as Indirect Fuel ......................................................................................16 1.3 Fuel Reforming .............................................................................................................17
1.3.1 Autothermal Reforming (ATR).........................................................................17 1.3.2 Partial Oxidation Reforming .............................................................................17 1.3.3 Steam Reforming ..............................................................................................18
2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................19
2.1 Reformer .......................................................................................................................19 2.2 Literature review ...........................................................................................................24
2.2.1 Langmuir Hinshelwood Model .........................................................................25 2.2.2 Nakagaki Correlation ........................................................................................27
3 MODELING OF A PACKED BED REFORMER ................................................................28
3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................28 3.2 Background of Thermal Model.....................................................................................28
3.2.1 Methanol Steam Fuel Cell Reformer ................................................................28 3.2.2 General Description of the Reformer................................................................29 3.2.3 Partial Differential Equation .............................................................................30
3.3 Finite Difference Method..............................................................................................30 3.3.1 Discretization ....................................................................................................30 3.3.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions .......................................................................35
3.3.2.1 Dirichlet’s Boundary Conditions........................................................35 3.3.2.2 Neumann’s Boundary Conditions.......................................................35 3.3.2.3 Initial conditions .................................................................................36
5
3.3.2.4 Treatment of an undetermined boundary condition............................36 3.3.2.5 Special Case of Fictitious Nodes at Neumann’s Boundary
Conditions...........................................................................................37 3.4 Model Validation ..........................................................................................................39 3.5 Non-Dimensional Analysis ...........................................................................................42
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................46
5 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................60
APPENDIX
A MATLAB CODES .................................................................................................................63
B TEST BED BUS-2 CONTROL LOGIC.................................................................................80
C DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL SCHEME ...........................................................................91
LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................108
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................110
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 4.1 Constants used for finding solution to the reformer model. .............................................46
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2.1 Generalized Fuel Cell Schematic.......................................................................................23
3.1 Generalized reformer schematic. .......................................................................................29
3-2 Discretization along length and radius of the reformer. ....................................................32
3-3 Discretization along length and radius of the reformer and along time increments. .........32
3.4 Fictitious nodes ..................................................................................................................37
4-1 Temperature profile of reformer after 230 mins ................................................................47
4-2 Temperature plots at mid-radius of reformer after 230 minutes........................................48
4-3 Temperature profile according to analytical solution ........................................................49
4-4 Reformer temperature with zero boundary conditions (Numerical solution) ....................50
4-5 Temperature profile of mid-radius according to Analytical Solution................................51
4-6 Transient analytical solution for axial temperature gradient .............................................52
4-7 Transient numerical solution for axial temperature gradient. ............................................52
4-8 Analytical heat transfer solution for temperature as a function of axial position and time at radial distance = 0.75R...........................................................................................53
4-9 Numerical solution at different location along x-axis at r = 0.75 m. The temperature profiles are shown at different time instances....................................................................53
4-10 Non – dimensional temperature profile using analytical method ......................................54
4-11 Comparison of temperature profile of mid-radius according to Numerical Solution with and without heat generation.......................................................................................56
4-12 Temperature profile of reformer after 230 mins (with heat generation)............................57
4-13 Comparison of temperature profile of mid-radius according to numerical solution with and without convection..............................................................................................59
8
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science
MODELING AND SIMULATION OF A FUEL CELL REFORMER FOR CONTROL APPLICATIONS
By
Mohua Nath
December 2007
Chair: William Lear Cochair: Oscar Crisalle Major: Mechanical Engineering
The limited success in the hydrogen storage and distribution technology has driven the
need for the development of an effective fuel processor. The dynamic performance of a reformer
is of critical importance for the successful commercialization of hydrogen as fuel for stationary
and transportation applications. The reforming technology is of particular interest to utilities that
require a clean and efficient method of generating electricity from fuel cells.
As an effort to achieve a better control of the fuel processor parameters, a dynamic model
of a generalized reformer is built. The model successfully predicts the transient temperature
gradient across a reformer catalyst bed and the reformate exit temperature and is capable of
predicting the response of the reformer to disturbances and load fluctuations.
The reaction and heat transfer in the catalyst packed bed was analyzed numerically using a
generalized physical model. These results provide valuable insight into the transient response of
a reformer. The numerical output was compared with analytical results which agreed well with
each other. This confirmed the validity of the numerical method.
Also as a part of this research, the control logic of a methanol powered fuel cell bus was
studied. The overall control scheme shows that the catalyst bed temperature plays an important
9
role determining the fuel flow into the reformer. The successful prediction of reformer
parameters can thus be utilized to eventually design a reformer capable of quick starts and faster
transient response.
10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The growing world economy and the limited resources of nonrenewable fuels emphasize
the need for aggressive development of alternative fuels. Advanced power generation technology
utilizing alternative fuels can become a factor in reducing emission of greenhouse gases,
improving urban air quality and reducing dependency on foreign oil.
Hydrogen can be used in fuel cell which is a promising technology, providing efficient and
reliable source of energy for a wide range of applications [1,6]. Although hydrogen is abundantly
found in nature, extraction of hydrogen from its compounds remains a challenge before it can be
commercially viable as a fuel. Hydrogen can be used for multiple applications, ranging from
power generation to transportation applications, or internal combustion engines to fuels cells.
Reforming hydrogen from any hydrocarbon carrying fuel such as natural gas, biomass, coal or
ammonia provides an attractive solution for hydrogen storage for portable applications [1,2]. The
particular case of reforming to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells for transportation
applications is selected here for specification of geometric and thermodynamic parameters to be
used in this study.
1.1 Fuel Cells
Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that produce direct current electrical energy from
chemical energy. Fuel and an oxidant are continually supplied to the fuel cell for the reaction to
take place [2]. The main components of a fuel cell are an electrolyte, catalyst and a porous anode
and cathode. In the presence of a catalyst, the fuel, particularly hydrogen, splits into a proton and
an electron. The electrons flow through an external circuit generating electricity and thereafter
combines with protons and oxidants to form by-products at the cathode. Oxygen, acting as an
11
oxidizing agent in this reaction, combines with the protons and electrons at the cathode to form a
molecule of water.
The overall reaction is as follows:
OHOH 222 21
→+ 1-1
There are many types of fuels cells currently under investigation, including phosphoric
acid fuel cells (PAFC), polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEMFC), alkaline fuel cells (AFC),
molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC). The classification of fuel
cells is made based on the type of electrolyte. Among these, the PAFCs and PEMFCs hold the
most potential for use as an alternative to internal combustion engines for transportation
applications [1].
1.1.1 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
Phosphoric acid fuel cells were the first type to be commercially investigated, other than
for the U.S. space program. The electrolyte is phosphoric acid, usually contained in a silicon
carbide matrix, and the electrodes made of Teflon® -bonded platinum or porous
polytetradluoroethylene (PTFE) - bonded carbon, which is a polymeric binder used to hold the
carbon black particles together [1, 7, 5]. In the presence of a catalyst, usually platinum, the
positively charged hydrogen ions migrate towards the cathode. Electrons generated at the anode
travel through an external circuit towards the cathode, thus creating electric current. The
hydrogen ions and electrons combine to form water which is a by-product of this electrochemical
process. The phosphoric acid fuel cells operate optimally between 150°C to 220°C, as at lower
temperatures, carbon monoxide poisoning of the anode may occur. PAFC stacks need a heat sink
during operation, usually a coolant, either liquid or gas, that passes through channels integral to
the membrane electrode assembly [1, 2].
12
The chemical reactions are as below:
2Anode: 2 2H H + −→ + e
2 21Catode: 2 22
O H e H+ −+ + → O
2 21Overall: 2 2H O H+ → O
eO
The PAFC stack operates at efficiencies between 37% and 40% and since heat is a by-
product of the electrochemical process, the overall efficiency of a combined process can reach
80%. PAFCs can tolerate a 0.5% concentration of carbon monoxide and are minimally affected
by the presence of carbon dioxide.
1.1.2 Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells (PEMFC)
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells are considered most suitable for transportation
applications. A PEMFC is based on a solid polymer membrane which may be a thin plastic film
of sulphonated fluro-polymers that act as an electrolyte [1]. The two porous electrodes on either
side of the membrane are made hydrophobic by coating with a compound like PTFE, thus
helping the reactants to diffuse into a platinum layer that acts as a catalyst.
The hydrogen ions diffuse through the membrane towards the cathode and the electrons
flow through an external circuit thus producing electric current. Oxygen acts as an oxidizing
agent and combines with the electrons and hydrogen ions and forms a by-product of water.
The chemical reactions are as below:
2Anode: 2 4 4H H + −→ +
2 2Catode: 4 4 2O H e H+ −+ + →
2 2 2Overall: 2 2H O H+ → O
PEMFCs have higher volumetric energy density than other types of fuel cells, thus making
them compact and suitable for vehicular applications. The optimal operating temperature is
around 80°C , which allows quick start-up and faster transient response. Recent developments
13
however have elevated the operating temperature of PEMFCs beyond 150°C to reduce the effect
of CO poisoning, simplify water and thermal management and to recover high value heat. Other
advantages are due to the fact that the electrolyte is solid therefore there is no spillage and
corrosion thus contributing to its longer shelf life [5, 7].
One of the major disadvantages of the PEMFC is that the membrane is required to be
continually hydrated to operate optimally, thus water management becomes a critical issue.
PEMFCs use platinum as a catalyst, which has very low tolerance to CO poisoning. They can
operate under a maximum of 10 ppm of CO, thus requiring a clean reformate gas to be used as a
fuel. Also, increasing the fuel cell temperature beyond 100°C can vaporize the water in the
electrolyte which is essential for the conduction of ions, thus requiring tight control of fuel cell
temperature and pressure [2, 7].
1.1.3 Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFC)
Alkaline fuel cells use a water-based electrolyte solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH)
with a concentration that can vary according to the fuel cell operating temperature, which could
be from 65°C to 220°C [2, 7]. The hydroxyl ion (OH-) acts as the charge carrier as in all other
fuel cell types, However, the water formed at the anode travels towards the cathode and
regenerates to hydroxyl ions. Therefore, in this type of fuel cell the by-product is only heat.
The chemical reaction is shown below:
Anode: 2 H2 + 4 OH- → 4 H2O + 4 e-
Cathode: O2 + 2 H2O + 4 e- → 4 OH-
2 2 2Overall: 2 2H O H+ → O
The main disadvantage of AFCs is that hydrogen and oxygen have to be supplied to the
cell with negligible concentrations of CO2, CO or CH4 as it can poison the electrolyte. This
requirement makes it difficult to be used for transportation applications. The advantage is that
14
they operate on comparatively lower temperatures does not require noble metals and have very
high efficiency.
1.1.4 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC)
These cells use a mixture of molten salt carbonates as an electrolyte which is contained in a
porous, inert matrix made of ceramic. The mixture is usually of varied percentages of lithium
carbonate and potassium carbonate. These fuel cells normally operate at a temperature of around
650°C. The high operating temperature indicates that these fuel cells can operate directly on
gaseous hydrocarbon fuels [1, 2].
At the high temperature of 650ºC, the alkali melt and become conductive to carbonate ions
(CO32-) which travel towards the anode. The ions flow from the cathode to the anode where they
combine with hydrogen to produce water, carbon dioxide and electrons. Thus the by-products are
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
The chemical reactions are shown below:
Anode: CO32- + H2 → H2O + CO2 + 2 e-
Cathode: CO2 + 1/2O2 + 2e- → CO32
Overall: H2 + 1/2O2 + CO2 → H2O + CO2
The main advantage is that at the higher temperature, fuel reforming can take place inside
the fuel cell stack itself, thus eliminating the need of an external reformer. The disadvantage of
these type of fuel cells is the time required to obtain the high temperature which greatly slows
the start-up process and makes the response sluggish [7].
1.1.5 Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)
The Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) operates under the highest temperature conditions,
ranging from 600ºC to 1000ºC; thus it can operate with a number of different fuels. The
electrolyte is a thin, solid ceramic material which conducts the charge carrying oxygen ions. The
15
efficiency of the fuel cells are around 60% which is the highest among the fuel cell types. The
by-product of steam can be utilized for various purposes.
The chemical reaction is as follows:
Anode: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O + 4 e-
Cathode: O2 + 4 e- → 2 O2--
Overall: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O
The main application of SOFCs is large-scale industrial systems where the demand is
higher power, and long start-up times only minimally affect the performance or system
requirements. Similar to MCFCs, the high temperature of the solid oxide fuel cells make them
capable of operating on impure fuels and reforming occurs inside the fuel cell itself. SOFCs are
being developed more than MCFCs because they have higher efficiency and ability to operate
under higher temperatures [2, 7].
1.2 Hydrocarbons as Indirect Fuel
Hydrogen acts as an energy carrier; however it is not a source of energy. Thus there is a
need for converting other sources of energy to hydrogen before it can be used directly in a fuel
cell. Electrolysis of water is a well known method of hydrogen production, but it cannot be used
for commercial production of hydrogen as it would be more economical to use the electricity
directly as an energy source than to use it to produce an energy carrier in the form of hydrogen.
The other method commonly used to generate hydrogen is by the reforming of hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons in liquid form are easier to carry on-board and thus can be used for transportation
applications.
The most commonly-used process to produce hydrogen is the steam reforming reaction
which is to react hydrocarbons with water at a high temperature. To improve the hydrogen-
production efficiency and remove impurities, a water-gas shift reaction usually takes place after
16
the steam reforming reaction. In this process, carbon monoxide produced from steam reforming
reaction can be utilized to further break down water into hydrogen.
1.3 Fuel Reforming
1.3.1 Autothermal Reforming
Among all the methods that produce hydrogen, autothermal reforming reaction is
considered to be one of the most effective processes as it allows faster start-up and response
time.
ATR uses liquid hydrocarbons as fuel that undergoes a reaction with steam or air in a
single reactor. While operating in ideal condition, with the optimal amount of air, fuel and steam,
the reaction’s efficiency can reach up to 93.9%. The ATR process is also capable of using
hydrocarbons such as gasoline and diesel, which can make it more commercially viable. One of
the more recent developments is the possible reduction of operating temperatures from 1,200°C
to 650-900°C by reducing oxygen to carbon ratios. The main advantage of reducing the
operating temperature is that it allows for simpler reactor design, lowers cost in terms of material
complexity and requires less fuel during startup conditions to pre-heat the reactor [8].
The basic reaction is as follows:
4 2 21 22CH O H CO+ → +
4 2 23CH H O H CO+ → +
1.3.2 Partial Oxidation Reforming
Partial oxidation reaction is not as frequently used for commercial purposes as the other
types. It is an exothermic reaction where a hydrocarbon reacts with controlled amount of oxygen.
The advantages of this reaction are that it has a fast response time, high efficiency and does not
require a catalyst. In addition, the byproduct of heat can be transferred via a heat exchanger for
17
other applications. The disadvantages of this process are that it requires a high operating
temperature and a high fuel /air ratio for the combustion.
The overall reaction is as below:
4 2 21 22CH O H CO+ → +
1.3.3 Steam Reforming
The majority of hydrogen produced commercially is from steam reforming reaction. This
reaction combines steam with hydrocarbon feedstock in a high temperature and pressure reactor.
This is an endothermic reaction, thus requiring an external source of to maintain the temperature
in the reactor. Generally, a nickel catalyst bed is used to speed up the reaction and increase the
efficiency of the process. The advantages of this reaction are that it can achieve efficiency as
high as 85% with heat recovery and can achieve the reaction efficiency of 80% [1]. The main
drawbacks of this process are its plant size and slow startup.
The overall reaction is as below:
4 2 23CH H O H CO+ → +
18
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Reformer
The development of a fuel reformer and its optimization may hasten the advent of
widespread fuel cell deployment. The limited success so far, in the establishment of an
infrastructure for hydrogen supply, can be overcome by the alternative solution of reforming
hydrogen rich fuels on-board.
Research on storage methods of hydrogen by physical or chemical means for fuel cell
based vehicles has not yet provided a satisfactory practical solution, thus further supporting the
need of reforming a hydrocarbon fuel such as methanol. The fuel used for reforming may vary
according to the application. Whereas methanol, gasoline or ethanol may be a preferred fuel for
transportation applications, natural gas or propane may have advantages for stationary
applications. [12].
A reformer system typically consists of a premix tank, preheater, a reactor, a gas pre-
treatment unit and a burner. A mixture of liquid hydrocarbon and water is fed from the premix
tank to the preheater where it is vaporized and superheated before it is sent to the reactor. The
energy for the endothermic reaction is supplied by the catalytic burner which heats up the reactor
to a preset temperature. The reformed gas is treated in the gas pre-treatment unit to remove
impurities like carbon monoxide and to further adapt it to meet the fuel cell requirements.
The particular type of reforming taken as an example in this study is a catalytic steam
process. It utilizes catalytic steam reforming to process the fuel mixture of methanol and water
into a hydrogen rich gas. The power generation is accomplished by the oxidation of hydrogen in
the fuel cell stack. The depleted fuel mixture is combusted in the steam reformer burner before is
the products are finally liberated into the atmosphere.
19
Several engineering issues hinder the commercialization of fuel cell-reformer systems for
various applications. One of the most important issues is that the steam reformer dynamic
response is considerably slower than that of the fuel cell stack. The response of the reformer is
limited by heat transfer rates between the burner gases and the catalyst bed. The response can be
defined as a corresponding increase in hydrogen flow rate corresponding to a similar step change
in the load at the fuel cell stack. A quick change in heat transfer rates is required to meet the
variation of power levels. In addition, the temperature of the catalyst bed should remain constant
at design temperature conditions. The increase of catalyst bed temperature from its design
conditions can cause the permanent degradation of the catalyst. Thus an optimized reformer
design and robust control scheme for the corresponding reformer is to be developed for a quick
and efficient dynamic response of the system. The present work is to provide a foundation for
such a development.
Tighter control of the reformer is required in order for the fuel cell performance to follow
the load changing conditions of the vehicle. Control of the reformer has to be achieved by
keeping some variables as close to the set point as possible, mostly the catalyst bed temperature,
while changing the reformate flow in accordance with the demand at the fuel cell stack which is
the load-following generation of electric power.
This can be achieved by varying the temperature and flow of exit gases from the burner
which is the source of heat for the reformer endothermic reaction.
Figure 2.1 shows the general schematic of a fuel cell system with an on-board methanol
reformer, where the overall output, in the form of electricity can be stored in batteries or can be
used to drive the power-train of a vehicle.
20
The example system considered here for the sake of this study is a 50kW, 30ft Fuel Cell
Power Test Bed Bus, often referred as TBB, at the Fuel Cell Research Laboratory at the
University of Florida [9]. A 175 cell PACF stack is used in the TBB. Air at slightly above
ambient pressure is supplied to the cathode to provide oxygen. Hydrogen rich gas, i.e. reformate,
is generated by an onboard fuel processor which converts methanol and water to H2, CO2 and
CO. During normal operating conditions, the fuel cell stack is provided excess reformate to
ensure sufficient hydrogen is available to react at the electrodes. Approximately 80% of the
hydrogen in the reformate is consumed and the remaining 20% is supplied to the reformer burner
providing heat to continue with the endothermic reforming reaction. For a pre-mix of methanol
and water as reactants, the endothermic energy requirement is around 131 kJ/mole at 298°C.
Methanol is initially delivered by a pump to fuel the start-up burner, which in turn provides
heat to bring the fuel cell stack and reformer to an initial operating temperature. Once the set-
point temperature is reached in the reformer, the premix fuel is pumped into the reformer where
the steam reforming reaction begins to take place. In this type of indirect methanol system, the
fuel flow into the reformer is varied according to the load demands at the fuel cell stack output.
In the first part of the reaction inside the reformer, the hydrocarbon, in this case methanol,
undergoes a “cracking reaction” to decompose into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This is an
endothermic reaction where energy is continuously absorbed from the surroundings. As the
reactants that enter the reformer are already pre-heated, there is an initial drop in the reactant
temperatures, after which the heat required to maintain the reaction is provided solely by the hot
gases burned at the catalytic burner. Carbon monoxide produced by the process of steam
reforming may poison the noble metal catalysts in the fuel cell stacks. To reduce the
concentration of carbon monoxide in the reformate, a water gas shift reaction is used to reduce
21
the carbon monoxide concentration and additionally increase the hydrogen yield. The overall
reaction is as follows:
23 2HCOOHCH +→ (Cracking reaction) (2-1)
222 HCOOHCO +→+ (Shift reaction) (2-2)
This process produces hydrogen rich reformate which is sent directly to the anode of the
fuel cell to be oxidized. The unused hydrogen-containing gas, called the “flue gas,” is returned
via a feedback loop to a burner that burns the remaining hydrogen, providing the heat required
for the endothermic reformer reaction. In case of increasing power demands from the fuel cell
stack, the reformer must flow more reactants into the chamber and produce more hydrogen. This
response is usually slow as the constraints are the convective heat transfer between the burner
gases and reformer walls and conductive heat transfer from the walls to the catalyst inside the
reformer [3].
Accompanied by an increase in fuel flow inside the reformer, and a subsequent demand for
heat to the reformer walls, the fuel flow inside the burner is also increased. This helps to
maintain the temperature inside the reformer, keeping the rate of reaction constant, as the pre-
mix fuel is maintained at uniform concentration. Since these processes have a large lag time, the
result may be low quality reformate being directed to the fuel cell during transient conditions. On
the other hand, during ramp-down conditions of low power demand, the premix fuel flow is
reduced to adjust with the low hydrogen requirement at the fuel cell stack. Subsequently, the fuel
flow to the burner is also reduced as the hydrogen “flue gas” returning from the anode is
adequate to provide heat to the reactor [9].
Due to the time delay in the reformer due to reaction kinetics, heat diffusion time and
convection, the effect of the control action is not measurable for a period of time. Sometimes this
22
long response time can exceed the quick-changing power demands at the fuel cell stack. This
causes the feedback loop to be sluggish where feedback signal is crucial to automatic control of
the reformer. The control action is thus inadequate since a change in the fuel flow will deliver the
required hydrogen in the stack only after a certain time delay, thus already creating a hydrogen
starvation at the stack or depleted hydrogen at the anode flue gas, again causing hydrogen
starvation at the burner.
Combustion Anode Flue Gas products
Anode Reformate Air Air
Cathode Reformer Steam Excess
burner Reformer Heat exchanger plate
Combustion products
Vaporizer Heat Exchanger
Neat Water methanol methanol
Air Start-up burner premix
air and water
Figure 2.1. Generalized Fuel Cell Schematic
Modeling is an essential tool to understand the component level interactions of the
reformer with the fuel cell stack and its implications on the overall system performance. A
reasonable representation of the transient response will enable future development of design and
control architectures for the reformer.
The reformer model is to predict the concentration of species in the reformate and the
reformer catalyst bed. The hydrogen output with respect to time will determine the transient
response and time delay of the reformer. The hydrogen flue gas returning to burner also
determines the methanol fuel flow rate to the burner.
23
To meet the needs of future control-oriented studies, another objective of modeling the
reformer is to obtain a set of differential equations which will represent a state space equation.
The state space equation will enable integration of the model into a simulation environment in
order to numerically predict the behavior of the system under varying operating conditions.
2.2 Literature review
According to Helms and Haley, a quick starting and fast transient response are the most
important characteristics of a fuel cell power plant for transportation applications. By far the
most popular reforming technology for on-board transportation application is catalytic steam
reforming [13]. Geyer et al indicated that the methanol steam reforming technology is superior in
its steam reforming technology. However, steam reforming transient response is slow in
comparison to other components of a fuel cell system, thus limiting the overall effectivity of a
plant in terms of dynamic response [17]. Thus it is crucial to increase the dynamic response of a
fuel cell reformer.
The first step towards improving the design and response characteristics of a reformer is to
develop a model that can be utilized to study efficiency and thermodynamics of the system. The
model should also be able to be used in conjunction with a controller design that can help
achieve faster response to the system dynamics and disturbances. Kumar et al, Vanderborgh et
al., and Geyer et al developed steady state models of the steam reformers, which do not predict
the steam reformers transient behavior [16, 18].
Ohl et al developed a first principles dynamic model of a steam reformer for use in
parametric design studies. The reformer was assumed to be a well mixed tank reactor. A series of
rate reactions for each constituent of the reformate and fuel mixture consisted of the state
variables of the system. The heat transfer equation consisted of the change in specific enthalpy
due to the reaction kinetics within the reformer. These equations were then represented in a state
24
equation form to describe a dynamic model of a steam reformer. Model results were then
coupled with an optimization process to determine the design parameters of a steam reformer [8,
20, 21]. The study however, does not take into consideration the heat transfer between the walls
of the reformer and any external heating agent such as burner hot gases or electric heaters.
Convective heat transfer between the gases and the reformer wall temperatures are neglected.
Ahmed et al developed a performance model of a reformer that predicted the
performance and temperature of a reformate gas mixture. A complete conversion of fuel was
assumed as there was a lack of chemical kinetics equation for the partial oxidation reaction for
which the model was built. The result of the analysis showed that there existed a linear relation
between the exit gas temperature and the inlet temperature of the fuel gas mixture. This model
was however specific to only partial oxidation reaction and was not a general reformer model
that could be applied for other types of fuel reforming [14].
Choi et al showed the results of kinetics of methanol decomposition along with methanol
steam reforming and the water gas shift reaction. A non – linear least squares optimization
method was used to obtain expressions for rate of reactions [15]. Numerical analysis concluded
separate rate of reactions for methanol steam reaction, water gas shift reaction and CO selective
oxidation. The three reactors were then integrated and modeled in MATLAB. This study helped
in observing the behavior of the reactor by changing its volume and temperature. Choi’s study
however did not take into account the heat transfer in the reactor or the dynamic response of the
reformer.
2.2.1 Langmuir Hinshelwood Model
Ohl et al developed a dynamic model of the methanol reformer using the Langmuir
Hinshelwood (LH) reaction rate for the methanol decomposition reaction. The use of this
reaction rate is particularly advantageous because of the wide range of pressures that it covers.
25
As the pressure increases the adsorption by the surface of catalyst bed and products slow down
the reaction. This reaction rate takes all this into account. According to B. A Pepply, at constant
temperature the rate of reaction increased with operating pressure although the final conversion
decreased with pressure at thermodynamic equilibrium [17].
LH reaction kinetics is one of the simplest reaction mechanisms and it describes most
catalytic surface reactions. The LH mechanism assumes that all reactants are adsorbed before the
actual reaction can take place. Reactions occur between the adsorbed molecules following a fast
diffusion process. The adsorbed molecules then are desorbed. The LH mechanism consists of
many reaction steps taken together, ranging from 2 and may extend upto 30. Each step is
assumed to be an elementary step, meaning that the reaction is supposed to occur exactly as it is
written.
Although the general success of the LH mechanism has been accepted, inaccuracies can
apparently occur due to certain reactions that may be autocatalytic. Since the water gas shift
reaction is itself an autocatalytic reaction, the appropriateness of the use of this rate equation for
the water gas shift reaction is debatable. In addition to it, there are speculations that the water gas
shift reaction may not occur in the presence of methanol on the catalyst bed. Since the LH
mechanism assumes that one step is the rate limiting step while the others are at equilibrium,
thus it reduces the rate of the overall reaction defined by the rate of the decomposition of
methanol.
Ohl expressed the methanol decomposition rate as follows:
wwmm
mmmc
pbpbpbkm
r++
=1
η (2-3)
26
where r is the reaction rate for the decomposition of methanol, mc is the mass of the catalyst bed,
η is the effectiveness factor, km is the methanol decomposition rate, bm and bw are the methanol
and water adsorption equilibrium constants respectively, pm and pw are the partial pressures of
methanol and water, respectively.
2.2.2 Nakagaki Correlation
Another way to express the rate of reaction has been developed by Nakagaki et al at
Toshiba Power Systems. They carried out tests for evaluating the reaction rate of methanol
decomposition with varying mass flow rates. Results showed that the diffusion resistance were
more significant for lower mass fluxes thus the reaction rate varied at lower mass fluxes [11].
However it was found to be constant at higher mass fluxes, greater than 0.14kg/sm2
Also a correlation was found between pressure and the reaction rate. It was found that the
reaction rate became lower at higher pressures, thus they expressed the rate of reaction as power
law of the total pressure.
Dependence of reaction rate to temperature was found to adhere to Arrhenius’s law for
temperatures, T<513 K. However for temperatures, T>513 K, conclusive results were not drawn.
Based on these experimental observations, Nakagaki et al., derived the reaction rate of
decomposition on Methanol, rm on Zn/Cu catalyst to be:
(2-4) NRTEmlm OHCHeTPkr 3
/0 )513/( ×=
where, ko = 1.35 X 106 mol / (gcat.s.atm) l = 0.13 E = 1 X 105 J/mol N = 1.3 M = -10 if T > 513 K else = 0
27
CHAPTER 3 MODELING OF A PACKED BED REFORMER
3.1 Overview
This chapter describes the basic principles behind the modeling of physical reformers. The
theory governing the equations and the application of initial and boundary conditions are
explored. In addition, the text explains the method of finite differences adopted to solve
numerically the underlying partial differential equation. An independent analytical solution is
presented to solve the heat transfer equation for a special case and thus validate the numerical
model.
The rate of reaction and the conversion of hydrocarbons to hydrogen depend on the
temperature of the catalyst bed of the reformer. Consequently, the catalyst bed temperature and
the outlet temperature of the product gases are the most critical process variables affecting the
performance of the reformer [4]. The purpose of building the numerical model is to predict the
temperature profile and reformate compositions as a function of time and space for a reactor of
any cylindrical geometry under different operating conditions. This model should be useful for
developing a controller that will manipulate the required process parameters of a methanol fuel-
cell reformer or a biomass gasifier reactor to optimize their performance.
3.2 Background of Thermal Model
3.2.1 Methanol Steam Fuel Cell Reformer
The conversion of a methanol and steam mixture to hydrogen and other product gases
takes place inside the reformer. This reformer is usually a cylindrical packed-bed reactor with
Cu/Zn catalyst pellets [10]. The fuel mixture is preheated in a superheater before being injected
into the reformer with a feed pump. The heat for the endothermic reaction is supplied through the
28
walls of the reformer by a catalytic burner. The rate of reaction or decomposition of methanol
depends on the temperature of the reformer and the concentration of methanol.
The motivation for developing a thermal model for a methanol fuel-cell reformer is to
provide a tool for designing a controller which will maintain the reformer at an optimal
operational temperature. The thermal model consists of a heat transfer equation with conduction
and convection terms.
3.2.2 General Description of the Reformer
Due to the similarity between methanol reformers and other hydrocarbon reformers and the
common goal of developing a controller, a single model of a general reformer is proposed. A
cylindrical packed-bed reformer where the reactions take place on the catalyst pellets is assumed
[19]. Figure 3.1 shows the mass and energy flows, where r and x are respectively the radial and
longitudinal axis of the reformer. The total length of the reformer in the axial direction is L and
that in the radial direction is R. External heating is supplied through the walls of the reformer.
The flow of gas mixture takes place in the axial direction and the radial mass flow is ignored.
heat r
x
reactants reformate
Figure 3.1. Generalized reformer schematic.
29
3.2.3 Partial Differential Equation
A cylindrical coordinate system is chosen in this problem to convert from three-
dimensions to two-dimensions, as the heat conduction and convection is symmetrical about the r
axis. The partial differential equation relevant to this model in the cylindrical coordinate system
is
xTCu
dVEd
xTk
rTk
rT
rk
tTC ggas
gee
eee ∂
∂+−
∂∂
+∂∂
+∂∂
=∂∂ ερρ
.
2
2
2
2
(3-2)
where
T = T(x,r,t)
and where eρ is the effective mass density of the control volume, is the effective specific heat
of the control volume, is the temperature inside the reformer, is the effective conductivity of
the control volume,
eC
T ek
r is the radial axis, is the axial axis, is the rate of heat generated in
the reaction, V is the total volume of the reformer, u is the velocity of gas,
x.
gEd
gasρ is the density of
the gas, and the void factorε is the ratio of mass of gas to the total mass of solid inside the
control volume[3].
For simplification of the numerical analysis, the convection term and heat generation term
xTCu
dVEd
ggasg
∂∂
+ ερ
.
gas gTu Cx
ρ ε ∂∂
is initially omitted.
3.3 Finite Difference Method
3.3.1 Discretization
The first order derivatives of a function f(x+h), in terms of the discrete differences can be
expressed using Taylor series expansion as
30
h
ffxf kk −= +1' )( (3-4a)
or,
h
ffxf kk 1' )( −−= (3-4b)
Adding (3-4a) and (3-4b) yields a third possible approximation, namely
k kf ff xh
+ −−=' ( ) 1
21 (3-4c)
Equations (3-4a), (3-4b), and (3-4c) are finite difference approximations using backward,
forward and central differentiation, respectively. Using the central difference scheme in the
differential equation (3-2), the first order discretization can be written in the form
TT (3-5a)
Similarly (3-4a) second order discretization is of the form
(3-5b)
If the radius of the reformer is divided into M equal discrete elements of size r∆ , then
represents a node on the radial axis, j r . Similarly if the length of the reformer is discretized into
N elements of size x∆ , en i represents a node on axial direction, x. Figure 3-2 shows the
discretization of a cross-section of the upper half of the reformer. Only the upper half of the
cylinder is considered as the heat transfer is symmetrical about the r-axis of the reformer. Figure
3-3 introduces another axis with time, t , as an independent variable. Though while simulating,
discretization in time is not carried out, we will further proceed to make a dynamic model of the
reformer with the help of SIMULINK which utilizes an explicit method to find the transients of
th
rrT jiji −
∆=
∂ −1,,
∂
( )21,,2,
2
2 2TT
r
TrT jijiji
∆
−+=
∂−−∂
31
the temperature profile every instant of time, denoted as thn n t∆ , where is a finite time
interval.
t∆
r
Figure 3-2. Discretization along length and radius of the reformer.
Figure 3-3. Discretization along length and radius of the reformer and along time increments.
∆ x
(0,M)
iT, j+1
x
i,T ji-1,jT
Ti+1,j
i,j-1T
… r∆
(0,j)
…
(0,0) … …(i,0) (N,0)
n
n+1
x
r
Ti, j+1
1, −jiT
Ti+1, jTi, jTi, j+1
32
Thus the governing PD (3-2) can be discretized in the and x rE, directions into N and M
number of nodes and written in the ODE form. For simplicity of numerical analysis, initially the
heat generation term has been excluded.
( ) ( )
1, 1 , , 1 , 2 ,i j , 1 2, , 1,2 2
2 2n n n n n n n ni j i j i j i j i j i j i j i je
e e eff eff
dT T T T T T T TkC k kdt r r r x
ρ − − − − − − −− + − + −= + +
∆ ∆ ∆ (3-6)
The above general equation form can be written as a set of ODEs by invoking the value
and and the resulting set can be re-arranged in terms of a banded
pentadiagonal matrix of co-efficient, as follows:
T
Ni ...3,2,1,0= Mj ...3,2,1,0=
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢⎢
⎢⎢
⎣⎥
⎥⎥
⎦⎢⎣
NM
rlrtrlrt
rlrt
dtdT
0
M
M
KKKK
M
M⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢
⎢⎡
=
⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥⎤
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎡
−
−
NM
NM
NM
TT
TT
lrtrlrt
srlrtsrlrt
srlrtsr
srlrt
srlr
srl
dtdT
dt
dt
dT
1
4
3
1
7
6
1
00
0
000
M
M
K
M
M
M
MM
M
M
KKKKKK
M
M
M
M
M
(3-7a)
where,
= T
similarly,
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢⎢
lrt
srlrsrlr
dTdt
dT
0
MM
M
⎥⎥
⎢⎢
⎥⎥
⎢⎢⎥ Tsrlr
dTdt 2
2
M
T1
⎥⎥
TMNNN
TNMNN TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ]...........,,,,..,,,,[],.......,,....,,[ ,2,2,32,22,11,1,31,21,11321 =+
33
TMNNN
TNMNN
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
dtdT
],...,,,..,,,,[
],.......,,....,,[
,2,2,32,11,1,31,21,1
1321 =+
The nodes representing i = 0 and j = 0 have not been included in this matrix because i=0 is
the boundary region at the entrance of the reformer. Since at this point, the boundary condition is
assumed to be constant always, which is equal to the inlet flow gas temperature, it will have a
fixed numerical value. Storing N number of numerical values for every computational iteration
will take up a lot of computer storage space, thus the nodes are not taken into consideration in
this matrix, which was built solely for iteration purpose. All the nodes representing i=0 is
represented by one value in the computer program and is used every time the boundary nodes are
required to calculate the temperature of its adjacent node. Similarly for j=0 which represents the
radius of the cylindrical reformer, it is assumed that there is a “no flux” condition across the
radius of the reformer, these radial nodes will have the same value as its adjacent nodes. In order
to save computer space by storing duplicate values, these nodes are not included in the matrix
g the iterations. The treatment of these boundary conditions will be dealt with more
detail in a later section.
Let the N x M pentadiagonal matrix in equation (3-7) be denoted as P. Then,
while doin
ddt
= PT (3-8)
where,
T
[ ]NM NMT T T T−= , ........ ,1 2 1T
This equation can be integrated to yield
t
i i i idn n n+ = +1 0∫0
T PT T T (3-9)
34
where T
⎡ ⎤⎣ ⎦0T is a vector of initial conditions
T
NM NM−⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦1 2 1
Thus a new vector of temperature values as a function of time can be found using various
algorithms and iteration methods. SIMULINK has been used to solve the above equations usi
an explicit Runge-Kutta method.
3.3.2 Initial and Bound
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= , ........ ,0 0 0 0 0T
ng
ary Conditions
lar case of interest,
so as to define appropriate problems with unique solutions. The initial condition gives the
specific temperature distribution in the system at time zero, and the boundary conditions specify
erature or the heat flow at the boundaries of the medium.
3.3.2.1 Dirichlet’s Boundary Conditions
ons are fixed boundary conditions on the reformer wall
and the inlet of the reformer, where the temperature is held constant by electric heaters supplying
heat into the system through the walls or by the inflow of pre-heated gas and. This is expressed
atical
= , at r = R
T T T T
Boundary conditions and initial conditions are prescribed for a particu
the temp
The Dirichlet’s Boundary Conditi
mathem ly as follows:
T x r t( , , ) wallT , x L≤ ≤0 and
= , at x = 0, and
3.3.2.2 Neumann’s Boundary Conditions.
Neumann Boundary Conditions are natural boundary conditions in the outlet where there is
no heat flux across the radius because of symmetry and the exit of the reformer is assumed to be
insulated so that zero heat flux can be assumed in that plane. This is expressed mathematically as
follows:
t ≥ 0
T x r t( , , ) inT r R≤ ≤0 t ≥ 0
35
rT x r t( , , ) = 0, at r = 0, x L≤ ≤0 and t ≥ 0
T x r t( , , ) = 0, at x = L, where L is the length of the reformer, x r R≤ ≤0 and t ≥ 0
where and r xT x r t T x r tr xT T∂ ∂
= =
ghout the reformer. This is expressed mathematically as follows:
, 0T x r t x L R≤
where is a
ndary condition
∂ ∂( , , ) ( , , )
3.3.2.3 Initial conditions
The reformer is heated to a critical temperature by the start-up burner. The initial condition is
assumed to be uniform throu
( , , ) , at 0, 0initT t r= = ≤ ≤ ≤
initT constant value.
3.3.2.4 Treatment of an undetermined bou
Let us consider the governing equation (3-2) again after neglecting the convection term,
namely
.2 2
2 2ge
e e eff effC k kt r r r x dV
ρ = + + −∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
(3-10)
For the first-or
d EkT T T T∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
der term in r , the Neumann’s un bo dary conditions at r = 0 do not apply here
because of a term
0/0 that becomes undefined. Applying L’Hospital’s rule yields
rrT
rr
rT
r ∂∂
∂∂∂∂
=∂∂1 (3-11)
where the right hand side can be written as,
2
2
rTTr ∂
=∂∂∂ (3-12)
rrr ∂∂∂∂
Replacing this term in (3-10) yields,
2 2
2 22 ge eC kρ eff eff
dET T Tkt r x dV
∂ ∂ ∂= + −
∂ ∂ ∂
& (3-13)
36
Furthermore, where r=0, the term gdE&
dV
While bu
is neglected.
ilding a numerical simulation, this special case is accounted for separately to obtain the
correct temperatures of the nodes at the axis of the reformer.
.3.2.5 Special Case of Fictitious Nodes at Neumann’s Boundar
ormer requires
temperatures of a ‘fictitious’ node, . Since there is zero heat flux across the exit nodes of
the reformer, we make use of this to assign a value to the fictitious nodes.
3 y Conditions
While implementing central difference scheme, the temperature of a node depends on the
temperatures of its adjoining nodes. Thus the nodes at the exit edge of the ref
nN jT + ,1
Figure 3.4. Fictitious nodes
The no-flux condition is used to find the value of the fictitious nodes. First the x-direction
derivative is written as
N j N jTTTx x
+ −−∂ , ,1 1 (3-14)
which can be solved for to yield,
=∂ ∆
N jT + ,1
nN jT + ,1
nN jT +, 1
nN jT − ,1
nN jT −, 1
37
N j N jTT x Tx+ −
∂= ∆ +
∂, ,1 12 (3-15)
Now at the zero-flux condition, Tx
∂=
∂0 , so it follows that
1, 1,N j N jT T+ −= (3-16)
Hence the temperature at fictitious node at ),1( jN + can be replaced by the temperature
at . A similar relationship can be developed at the other edge having fictitious nodes
.
Finally after implementing all the boundary conditions, the governing pentadiagonal
n the form,
),1( jN −
which lie at 0=r
matrix 3-6 can be re-written i
⎥⎥⎦⎢
⎢⎣⎥
⎥⎦⎢
⎢⎣
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎦⎢⎢
⎣
+
−+−+
MN
MNMTlrdt )1(
1)1()1)(1
00 KKKKK
M
⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎤
⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎡
⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎤
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
=
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢
⎢⎢
⎢⎢
⎢
⎢⎡⎥
⎥⎥⎤
⎢⎢ ldT
T
2
1
02
⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢⎢
⎥⎥
⎢⎢ rlr MM
⎥⎥
⎢⎢
⎥⎥
⎢⎢
+NTs 1M
⎢⎢
⎥⎥
⎢⎢
lrrlrM
M
⎢⎢⎥
⎥⎢⎢
ltl
dTdt
7 2002
⎢
⎢⎢
⎢⎡
+
+
MN
N
N
T
TT
TT
trlrt
trlrt
rtst
sltlt
slts
ssl
slsl
s
dtdT
dT
dtdT
dt
dT
dt
dtd
4
3
2
1
)1(
(
1
6
0
020020
02000
0020
0200020
000
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
MM
M
KKKKKK
M
M
M
M
(3-7b)
⎢
38
In the above equation, the fictitious node N+1 and its multiples, which represent the exit
end of the reformer has been included in the pentadiagonal matrix. Its value is calculated exactly
as the value of N-1 node and its multiples. The nodes along the radius of the reformer form the
undetermined boundary conditions. Here, at the value of j=0, the equation (3-13) is
implemented. Thus all along the radius, the node temperatures have different co-efficients than
that of the rest of the discretized reformer. As shown above, in the initial first N nodes of the
reformer this boundary condition is imposed. This equation represents the governing matrix that
was used to numerically model the generalized refiormer.
3.4 Model Validation
To validate the accuracy of the numerical results, a comparison is made by solving the
partial differential equation (3-2) using an analytical method. The physical model is simplified
by neglecting the convection term to yield,
2 2
2 2
1 1T T Tr r r x tα
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂+ + =
∂ ∂ ∂T∂
(3-17)
T = initT T− , and where initT is the initial temperature. where, r R≤ ≤0 , x L≤ ≤0 and t > 0 ,
Equation (3-17) is subject to the boundary conditions,
0=T , at , 0r R x L= ≤ ≤ (3-18a)
0=T at 0, 0x r R= ≤ ≤ (3-18b)
0, at ,0T x L r Rx
∂∂
The problem (3-17) can be solved analytically by applying boundary conditions (3-18a) to
(3-18c) to yield
T x r t C R r xβ η∞ ∞
= ∑ ∑( , , ) ( ) (
= = ≤ ≤ (3-18c)
x e α β η− +
= =
( ))2 2
01 1
(3-19) m p tm p m p
m p
39
where the value of constant is he principle of orthogonality. Thus
mpC determined by using t
multiplying both sides by drrrR m
R
)(0
0 β∫ and dxxxL
p∫0
),(η yields
FdrdxxXrrRNN
C pm
R L1
r xpmmp )()(
)()( 0 00 ηβ
ηβ ∫ ∫= =
= (3-20)
Substituting (3-20) into (3-17) yields
m p t R L
m peT x r t R r X x rF R r X x drdx
α β η
β η β η− +∞ ∞
= ∑∑( )
( , , ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )2 2
0 (3-21)
Now, it is necessary to find the eigenfunctions
m pm p m p r xN Nβ η= = = =
∫ ∫( ) ( ) 01 1 0 0
)(0 rR mβ , the norm )( mN β , and the
eigenvalue mβ . From Table 3-1, Case 3 in reference [
ondition in question
10], it follows that for the boundary
c
)(0 rR mβ )(0 rJ mβ= (3-22a)
and
)(2
)(1
20
2 RJRN mm ββ=
(3-22b)
where mβ are the positive roots of 0)(0 =RJ mβ , and J is the Bessel function of order 0. To find
the eigenfunctions ( xX p
0
)η , the norm )( pN η , and the eigenvalue pη , we refer to Table 2-2,
Case 8 in [10] to find that
( )( ) sinp PX x xη η= (3-23a)
and
LN p
2)(
1=
η (3-23b)
40
where pη are the positive roots of cos ( Lpη ) = 0. Substituting (3-22a) – (3-23b) into (3-21)
yields
m p t R L
m p m pm p m p r x
eT x r t J r sin x rFJ r sin x drdN N
α β η
β η β ηβ η
− +
x∞
= = = =∫ ∫
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )
2 2
0 01 1 0 0
(3-24)
Separating the integrals produces the equation
∞
= ∑∑( , , )
m p t R L
m p m pm p m p r x
eT x r t F J r sin x rJ r dr sin x dxN N
α β η
β η β ηβ η
− +∞ ∞
= = = =
= ∑∑ ∫ ∫( )
( , , ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )
2 2
0 01 1 0 0
(3-25)
Integrating analytically the rightmost integral, and using the expressions (3-22a), (3-22b),
yields
(3-23a) and (3-23b)
m p t R
m p mm p m pr
e 1T x r t F J r sin x rJ r drLR J R
4
α β η
β η ββ η
− +∞
= =
= ∑∑ ∫( )
'( , , ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
2 2
0 02 21 1 0
(3-26)
∞
=0
m p t R
m p mm p m pr
e 1T x r t F J r sin x rJ r drLR J R
α β η
β η ββ η
− +∞ ∞
= = =
= ∑∑ ∫( )
'( , , ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
2 2
0 02 21 1 0 0
4 (3-27)
where from [1],
)(1)( 10 rrJdrrrJ mm ββ
β∫ = (3-28)
Substituting (3-28) into (3-27), the generalized final analytical solution reduces to,
m p t
m p m
m p m m pLRJ Rβ β η= = ( )21 1 1
4Fe J r sin x J RT x r t
α β η β η β− +∞ ∞
= ∑∑( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( , , )2 2
0 1 (3-29)
41
3.5 Non-Dimensional Analysis
A non-dimensional analysis is presented here to determine the heat transfer process in the
reformer. The formulation of the problem in terms of non-dimensional terms helps in studying
the physics of the process and should provide a useful tool for data analysis and comparison.
Consider the general partial differential equation
2 2
2 2
1 1T T Tt r r r xα
T∂ ∂ ∂ ∂= + +
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
In order to non-dimensionalize along radius and axial direction, let
Rrr /=) (3-30a)
Lx) -30b)
and
x = (3
0TTwall −0TT
T−
=)
(3-30c)
Substituting these new variables into the governing equation yields
tTTT
xx
xT
xTT
rr
rT
RrTT
rTTTT wallwallwall ∂−
=⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡ ∂∂∂−+
∂∂−+
∂−−∂
wall ∂∂∂∂∂∂
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
α02
(3-31)
or
)()(
)())(( 00002
tTT
xT
LrT
RrrT
R ∂∂
=∂∂
+∂
+∂
∂∂
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
α222220
22 111 (3-32)
aking 2Ltt α
=)
T equation (3-32) can be expressed
as
tTTT
xrrRL
rT
RL
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
∂=
∂+
∂∂
⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡+
∂∂
⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡
2
2
2
22 1 (3-33) ∂∂ 2
42
Using the method of separation of variables
)(),(),,( txrtxrT)))))))
Γ= ψ (3-34)
Equation (3-32) can be represented as
22
2
2
2 )()(
111 λψψψψ
−=Γ
Γ=⎟⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛∂∂
+∂∂
+∂∂
tdtd
txrrz
rz )
)
))))) (3-35)
where, .Then, taking the separated equations
2)/( RLz =
0)()( 2 =Γ+Γ λt
tdtd ))
)
(3-36a)
and
022
22
=+∂∂
+∂∂
+∂∂ ψλψψψ
xrrz
rz )))) (3-36b)
xXr
Again invoking separation of variables
),( Rxr )) =ψ )()( ))
quation (3-35) becomes e
011 2
⎜⎜⎛
+zRdz ))
22
2
2 =++⎟⎟⎠
⎞
⎝λ
xdXd
XrddR
rrdR )) (3-37a)
R and X ,
Separating in
22
21 η−=xdX
(3-37b)
nd
Xd)
a
22
2
2
21 β−=−⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+
rv
drdR
rz
rdRdz
R ))) (3-37c)
ads to two equations that can be solved individually to yie
le ld
022
2
=+ XxdXd η) ( ) ( )( , ) :sin cosX x x and xη η η) ) ) (3-38a) ⇒
43
0020
20
2
=++ Rrd
dRrz
rdRd
z β))) (3-38b)
0)()( 2 =Γ+Γ λt
tdtd ))
)
(3-38c)
Note: as equation has no φ dependence, it follows that, v=0
Thus the solutions of (3-38,a-c) taken as,
XrRe pmt ),( x),,(, 0
2 ))) )η βλ−
e expressed as
XrRCtxrT ))))) (),(),,( 01 1
ηβ∞
=
∞
=∑ ∑=
can b
tp ex
)) 2
), λ− (3-39) mm p
mp
Thus the final solution to equation (3-32) is
rRrxXrRNN
FetxrT mr x
pmm p pm
t)))))))))
) )
)
,(),(),()()(
),,(1
0
1
000
1 1
2
βηβηβ
λ
∫ ∫∑ ∑= =
∞
=
∞
=
−
=
Now to find the eigenfunctions from reference [1],
rdxdxX p)))),() η
(3-40)
)()( 00 rJrR mm)) ββ = (3-41a)
)(
21=
)( JRN mβ2
02 Rmβ
))′
(3-41b)
here, mβ)
are the positive roots of 0),(0 =RJ mβ)
w
)(sin)( xxX pp ηη = (3-42a)
LN p
2)(
1=
η (3-42b)
where, pη are the positive roots of 0)(cos =Lpη , where R and L are assumed to be 1.
Substituting equations (3-41a) to (3-42b) in (3-40),
44
rdxdxrJrxrJRJLR
Fetxr pmr x
pmm p m
t)))))))))
))))
) )
)
),(sin),(),(sin),()(
4),,(1
0
1
000
1 12
02
2
ηβηββ
λ
∫ ∫∑ ∑= =
∞
=
∞
=
−
′=
ion in non-dimensional form,
T
(3-43)
Solving the remaining integrals gives the final solut
,()(
4),,( 01 1
21
2
mm p pmm
t
JJ
FetxrT βηββ
λ )))
))))
∑ ∑∞
=
∞
=
−
= )(),(sin) 1 mp Jxr βη))) (3-44)
45
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter summarizes the computational results obtained by solving the physical
models of the reformer numerically and partially validating the results with analytical solution.
The steady state solution of the numerical model equation is solved using Matlab. The transient
solution is obtained by using SIMULINK, which uses the explicit method to find solution in the
next time instant.
A major purpose of this study was to be able to develop a model that would correctly
predict the reformer behavior in terms of temperature at any particular location. This temperature
would then act as an input to a controller that would determine the flow of premix fuel into the
system. The validity of the numerical model is established as will be shown in the subsequent
sections.
For the sake of the study the value of the reformer constants were taken same as the values
of a methanol reformer located at UC-Davis. The following table shows the values that were
estimated to match the UC-Davis reformer parameters.
Table 4.1 Constants used for finding solution to the reformer model. (Source: Table 4.1, Daniel Betts, 2005)
Name Value Used How it was determined
Catalyst Bed Heat Capacity, Ce 900 J/kg-K Inferred
Catalyst Bed Thermal Conductivity, ke 5.00 W/m-K Estimated from Data
Catalyst Bed Density, eρ 1983 kg/m3 Measured
The catalyst heat capacity was assumed to be equal to an average of the heat capacities of copper and zinc. The void factor used was 50%
The catalyst density was measured via a water displacement method for a single pellet
46
Figure 4-1 shows the numerical solution of (3-7) to find the temperature profile for a
simple case when the reformer boundaries are kept at constant temperature. The upper boundary
or the cylindrical wall of the reformer is kept at 580 K whereas the left side or the face of the
reformer is kept at 520 K.
Length of reformer [m]5 10 15 20 25
5
10
15
20
25530
535
540
545
550
555
560
565
570
Rad
ius
of re
form
er [m
]
Figure 4-1 Temperature profile of reformer after 230 mins
0.5
Rad
ius o
f ref
orm
er, r
[m]
0 Length of reformer, x [m] 0.5
The temperature at different location inside the reformer is shown with color variation. The
initial temperature of the reformer was 520 K. As the time increases the temperature inside the
reformer gradually increases as can be seen from the plot. The profile shown above is only for
one half cross section of the reformer. Now if this transient formulation is run for longer period
of time, it gives a steady state solution.
Figure 4-2 shows such time histories for different location along the center-line of the
reformer. Figure 4-2 A shows the temperature plot with respect to time at the inlet of the
reformer. It shows constant temperature at the beginning and then it rises and attains a steady
state temperature of 567 K whereas for figure 4-2 B and C the temperature rises from the
beginning
47
(A)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
x 104
523
523.5
524
524.5
525
525.5
526
526.5
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
(B)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
x 104
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
(C)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
x 104
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
Figure 4-2 Temperature plots at mid-radius of reformer after 230
minutes at (A) Inlet (B) Center (C) Exit.
48
Plotting equation (4-3) in Matlab, we get a temperature profile at r = 0.75, and at different
location of distance (x) axially along the reformer.
Figure 4-3 Temperature profile according to analytical solution
Tem
pera
ture
, T [K
]
Time, t [s]
Since for the analytical solution we used the Dirichlet’s boundary conditions as 0K, a
numerical simulation with similar boundary conditions was carried out by shifting the wall and
inlet gas temperature conditions to 0. The initial reformer temperature is kept at 520 K. As seen
from the plot, as the axial length increases the temperature approaches towards the steady state of
0 K at much slower rate. Figure 4-4 shows the temperature distribution plotted after 230 seconds
with zero boundary conditions.
Figure 4-5 shows the temperature profile along the center line of the reformer for the
analytical solution. The temperature profile for the inlet shows constant temperature at the
beginning before gradually falling and reaching a steady state temperature of 0 K.
49
R ]eformer length [m
Ref
orm
er R
adiu
s [m
]
5 10 15 20 25
5
10
15
20
25 0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Rad
ius o
f ref
orm
er, r
[m]
0.5
Figure 4-4 Reformer temperature with zero boundary conditions (Numerical solution)
0 Length of reformer, x [m] 0.5
50
A)
0 5000 10000 150000
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
(B)
0 5000 10000 150000
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
(C)
0 5000 10000 150000
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time [s]
Tem
pera
ture
[K]
Figure 4-5 Temperature profile of mid-radius according to
Analytical Solution at (A) inlet (B) center (C) exit
Figure 4-6 shows the plot of temperature at r = 0.75 and different locations along the axial
center of the reformer with time. This plot represents the analytical solution obtained directly
from equation 3-21 whereas figure 3-11 shows the same temperature plot at similar location
along the axial direction for finite difference solution. The plots match closely with each other
when plotted together. Here they are plotted differently for brevity.
51
Figure 4-6 Transient analytical solution for axial temperature gradient
. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x 104
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
t [s]
T [k
]
x=0.1x=0.25x=0.50x=0.75x=0.90
x increasing
Figure 4-7 Transient numerical solution for axial temperature gradient.
Figure 4-8 shows the temperature plot at different axial location along the reformer when
solved analytically. As the axial distance increases, the temperature flattens out.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
600
14x 10
4
0
100
200
300
400
500
x = 0.1x = 0.25 x = 0.5x = 0.75
Tem
pera
ture
, T [K
]
Time, t [s]
52
Figure 4-8 Analytical heat transfer solution for temperature as a function of axial position and time at radial distance = 0.75R
Figure 4-9 Numerical solutiotemperature profi
Tem
pera
ture
, T [K
]
Length of reformer, x [m]
Tem
pera
ture
, T [K
]
Length of reformer, x [m]
n at different location along x-axis at r = 0.75 m. The les are shown at different time instances
53
Figure 4-10 shows the results of the non-dimensional analysis using the analytical method.
The x-axis represents the time 2Ltt α
=)
, the y-axis represents the scaled reformer temperature.
Figure 4-10 Non – dimensional temperature profile using analytical method
Tem
pera
ture
, T [K
]
Length of reformer, x [m]
So far the results were obtained without taking into consideration the heat generation term
and convection term. However, it is important to include the heat of reaction in the current
analysis as the reforming reaction is endothermic and apart from the heat transfer between the
fluid and reformer wall, energy is consumed to maintain the reaction. The rate at which methanol
is consumed is calculated using the Nakagaki rate of reaction as is discussed in detail in Chapter
2. The following results show the comparison between the reformer bed temperatures by addition
of the heat generation term.
.
gEd
54
A)
(B)
Figure 4-11 Comparison of temperature profile of mid-radius according to Numerical Solution with and without heat generation at (A) exit (B) center (C) inlet
55
(C)
Figure 4-11. Continued
Figure 4-12 shows the temperature profile of the reformer with the heat generation term.
The upper boundary or the cylindrical wall of the reformer is kept at 580 K whereas the left side
or the face of the reformer is kept at 520 K.
As shown in Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12, it can be seen that due to the endothermic
reaction the reformer reaches a steady state at a lower temperature. Thus it can be concluded that
the reformer exhibits temperature fluctuations with the change in methanol flow rate. Since the
rate of reaction is directly proportional to the number of moles of methanol consumed, any
increase of flow of pre-mix fuel will cause a substantial drop in reformer catalyst bed
temperature. Thus there is an immediate requirement to ramp up the heat supply into the
reformer in terms of burner hot gases. This condition will be especially noticeable in a steep
increase in the load demand at the fuel cell stack.
56
Figure 4-12 Temperature profile of reformer after 230 mins (with heat generation)
R
adiu
s of r
efor
mer
, r [m
]
0.5
0 Length of reformer, x [m] 0.5
Betts indicated that the convection term was small compared to the conduction in the heat
transfer equation. The authors conclusion was backed by obtaining experimental data from UC-
Davis reformer which showed that the convection was below 0.4% of the value of the conduction
term. These results are expected as the axial temperature gradient is much lesser than the radial
temperature gradient and most of the flow occurs in the axial direction [4].
The current analysis includes the convection term and as can be seen from Figure 4-12, the
comparison shows negligible contribution to temperature gradient by the convective heat
transfer.
57
A)
(B)
Figure 4-13 Comparison of temperature profile of mid-radius according to numerical solution with and without convection (A) exit (B) center (C) inlet
58
(C)
Figure 4-13. Continued
59
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
The methodology and techniques used for dynamic modeling of a reformer are presented.
The model is further simulated numerically to predict the transient and spatial temperature
distribution of the reformer and the composition of the reformate. Steady state steam reformer
models have been developed in the past, but most of them are applicable to particular reformer
geometry and parameters. The reformer model developed in this research can be used to study
the transient behavior of a reformer of any geometry and size. The purpose of this research was
to develop a model that could be used in conjunction with a control model to ultimately design a
faster responding fuel processing system.
The most desired characteristic of a reformer is a quick transient response to load
fluctuations. It should be able to ramp up or down the reformate flow according to load demands
while maintaining an economic use of primary fuel. The numerical model built in this study
helps in understanding the reformer parameters that play an important role in deciding the
reaction rate and subsequently the species concentration of reformate.
This model in conjunction with a controller model should help build a controller design
that will lead to a quick and efficient dynamic response of a reformer. A sensitivity of the various
design parameters and their reasonable representation obtained on the basis of the simulation will
help in selecting the desired level of control capabilities of various controllers and in evaluating
alternative designs of the reformer.
From this study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
a. At typical boundary conditions and initial conditions of a steam reformer, the model predicts that steady state is reached after approximately 65 minutes.
b. Possible location of sensors – preferably at the mid-radius of the reformer. At boundaries, temperatures don’t predict accurate reactions rate fluctuations. Aim
60
is to have lesser number of sensors and less data analysis for the control. Preferably have three sensors –at x=0.1L, 0.5L and 0.9L and r=0.75R. Controller input to be average of the three sensors.
c. The temperature near the inlet reaches steady state faster than near the exit. However, the steady state temperature reached near the inlet is lower (closer to that of reformate gas temperature boundary condition) than that near the exit. Reactions occurring at the exit are lower as most of the reforming has already taken place near the inlet and heat required for the endothermic reaction is lower at the exit. Thus for higher efficiency and for optimal utilization of premix fuel, it is preferred that the aspect ratio of the reformer closer to 1.
d. The effect of pre-heating the fuel and reformer – From the results, it can be concluded that for obtaining faster start-up times, it is advisable to preheat both the premix fuel and reformer catalyst bed.
e. The convective heat transfer is negligible compared to conductive heat transfer and can be eliminated in further related studies.
f. Non-linear behavior associated with packed bed steam reformers may be noticed during ramp up conditions of the fuel cell stack load conditions due to the endothermic reaction. Since the reformer heat transfer rates are considerably slower than the rest of the system, an immediate increase in premix fuel rate may not produce desired amount of hydrogen in the reformate gas due to a drop in the reformer bed temperature. To avoid this condition of hydrogen starving at the fuel cell stack, designing a feed forward controller is suggested, which will increase the fuel flow into the burner as soon as ramp up condition occurs at the fuel cell stack. Controlling the burner fuel flow with the reformer catalyst bed temperature as the input to the controller will result in sluggish response and incomplete conversion of premix fuel.
Further work
1. Input disturbance into the system by making the reformer wall temperature as a Neumann B.C instead of Dirichlet’s B.C.
2. Gather substantial experimental data to completely verify the numerical model
built here. 3. Design a model-based controller – The input variables to the controller can be
the reformer catalyst bed temperature, reformate gas temperature and reformate
61
composition. The manipulated control variables can be the methanol premix flow and the air flow into the burner.
62
APPENDIX A MATLAB CODES
Reformer Input File
% reformer_inputfile.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This program specifies all the reformer parameters % This program is called by the m-file temp_cal1 %========================================================== % Catalyst bed - Gas mixture effective parameters %========================================================== ro_eff = 1983 ; % effective mass density of catalyst gas mixture in [kg/m3] C_eff = 900 ; % effective specific heat of catalyst gas mixture in [J/kgK] K_eff = 5.00 ; % effective conductivity of catalyst gas mixture [W/mK] %========================================================== % Reformer Dimensions (Cylindrical) %========================================================== Radius = 0.5 ; % Radius of reformer [m] Length = 0.5 ; % Length of reformer [m] %========================================================== %Discretization Parameters %========================================================== M = 30 ; N = 30 ; n = (N-2)*(M-2) ; del_r = Radius / N ; % Size of finite element along Radius del_x = Length / M ; % Size of finite element along Length %========================================================== % Co-efficients of PDE and ODE %========================================================== alpha = K_eff / ( ro_eff * C_eff ) ; % co-efficient to have Tdot on LHS for i = 1 : M-2 p(i) = alpha / ( del_r * i* del_r ) ; % Co-efficient of del r term of ODE end q = alpha / ( del_r * del_r ) ; % Co-efficients of del r2 term of ODE
63
r = alpha / ( del_x * del_x ) ; % Co-efficients of del x2 term of ODE %=========================================================== % Nakagaki reaction rate constants %=========================================================== k0=1.35e6 ; % reaction rate constant [mol/(g_cat.s.atm)] P=1 ; l=0.13 ; E=1e5 ; % [J/mol] nn=1.3 ; R=8.3143 ; % Universal gas constant %=========================================================== % Ohl's reaction rate constants %=========================================================== pm=10 ; % partial pressure of methanol pw=20 ; % partial pressure of water cm=30 ; % partial pressure of methanol %mc=40 ; % partial pressure of methanol %=========================================================== % Methanol properties %=========================================================== Er=201e3 ; % heat of reaction per mole of methanol consumed %=========================================================== for i = 1 : M-2 dia1(i) = -(p(i) +2*q+2*r) ; dia2(i) = (p(i) +q) ; end dia11 = -2*(del_r*p(1)+q)-2*r ; dia22 = del_r*p(1)+q ; %=========================================================%
64
Ordinary Differential Equation (Including Heat Generation Term)
% matrix_reformer3.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This function executes the S-function that solves the N set of ODE's % Invoked by the SIMULINK program matrix_sim_reformer2.sim %=========================================================== % <INPUT>: t= time ; x= vector of stateS ; u= vector of I/Ps ,... % flag= from simulink <OUTPUT>: sys = to simulink, x0 = I.Cs %=========================================================== function[sys, x0] = matrix_reformer3(t,x,u,flag) %=========================================================== % Call the inputfile for parameters %=========================================================== reformer_inputfile2 ; %=========================================================== % Flag 0 : Sends sizes and initial state vector to Simulink %=========================================================== if flag == 0 size_states = n ; % continuous time states size_disc_stats = 0 ; % number of discrete time states size_outputs = n ; % number of outputs to view size_inputs = 0 ; % number of inputs size_disc_roots = 0 ; % always 0 for now size_feedthrough = 0 ; % algebraic feed required? (no) sys = [size_states, size_disc_stats, size_outputs, size_inputs, size_disc_roots, size_feedthrough] ; % column vector of sizes from... % m file to simulink at flag=0 x0 = [523*ones(n,1)] ; % column vector of initial conditions %=========================================================== % Flag 1 : Brings T (x = state vector) from Simulink and Sends Tdot.. %(sys = state derivative) to Simulink %===========================================================
65
elseif abs(flag) == 1 %_________________________________________________________________ % Call the reaction_rate2 file to calculate rate of reaction %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [r1] = reaction_rate2(x,0); % send 'T' for Nakagaki rate, and n %_________________________________________________________________ % Calculate the heat of reaction at every node %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- n =(N-2)*(M-2) ; E(n) = 0 ; % initialise E reaction at all nodes as 0 for j = 1:n mc = 2 * pi * r1(j) * del_r * del_x ; %mass of control volume E(j) = mc*Er*r1(j)/(ro_eff*C_eff) ; % energy consumed at all node end %_________________________________________________________________ % Imposing of B.C's at reformer wall = 400 C = 673 K ! %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wall = 573 ; % create a vector of wall boundary nodes %________________________________________________________________ % Imposing of B.C's at reformer input --> 100 C = 373 K ! %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ inlet1 = 523 ; % create a vector of inlet boundary nodes %________________________________________________________________ % Impose the Nuemann condition at the exit of the reformer %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- st = 1 ; for i = N-1 : (N-2)*2 mid_rad(st) = x(i) ; st = st + 1 ; end j = 0 ; for i = 1 : M-2 cc = (N-2)*i - 1 ;
66
j = j+1 ; exit1(j) = x(cc) ; end %_________________________________________________________________ % calculate the Tdot...i.e temperature gradient at every node %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tdot(1) = dia11*x(1) + r*x(2) + dia22*x(N-1) + dia22*mid_rad(1) + ... r*inlet1 - E(1) ; % Tdot for 1st row %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ for j = 2:N-2 Tdot(j) = r*x(j-1) + dia11*x(j) + r*x(j+1) + dia22*x(N-2+j) + … dia22*mid_rad(j) - E(j) ; %Tdot for 2nd four rows if j == N-2 Tdot(j) = r*x(j-1) + dia11*x(j) + dia22*x(N-2+j) + dia22*mid_rad(j) + ... r*exit1(1) - E(j) ; else end end %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- d = 1 ; for j = (N-1):(N-2)*(M-3) Tdot(j) = (q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + r*x(j+1))+... dia2(d)*x(j+N-2) - E(j) ; % Tdot for middle rows for f = 1 : M-3 if j == ((N-1)*f)-(f-1) d = d+1 ; Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + dia1(d)*x(j) + r*x(j+1) + ... dia2(d)*x(j+N-2)+r*inlet1 - E(j) ; elseif j == (f+1)*(N-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + dia2(d)*x(j+N-2) + ... r*exit1(f+1) - E(j) ; end end end %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- el=60; for j = (N-2)*(M-3)+1:(N-2)*(M-2)
67
if j == (N-1)*d d = d + 1 ; else end if j < (N-2)*(M-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + r*x(j+1) + ... q*wall + p(d)*wall - E(j) ; % Tdot for last 5 rows else end if j == (N-2)*(M-3)+1 Tdot(j)= q*x(j-N+2) + dia1(d)*x(j) + r*x(j+1) + … q*wall+p(d)*wall+r*inlet1 - E(j) ; elseif j == (N-2)*(M-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + q*wall+p(d)*wall + ... r*exit1(M-2) - E(j) ; end end sys = Tdot(1:n)' ; %========================================================== % Flag 3 : Choose the outputs from the state vector 'T' (or x) %========================================================== elseif flag == 3 for j = 1:n y(j) = x(j) ; % We choose the entire T at all nodes end sys = y' ; % send column vector of outputs %========================================================== % Any other Flag : undefined....so return an empty vector %========================================================== else % All other flags are irrelevant to the problem sys = [] ; end %%======================================================%%
68
Driver File
% driver_reformer2.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 4 % This function executes the Simulink function... % 'matrix_sim reformer2' and calls the plot function %====================================================== reformer_inputfile2 % call inputfile to initialize parameters %====================================================== para = p ; par = [q,r,del_r,N,M,n,dia1,dia2,dia11,dia22, Er,ro_eff,C_eff] ; % pass parameters to matrix_reformer3 %====================================================== sim('matrix_sim_reformer') %plots_reformer_temp2(y) ; %======================================================
Banded Matrix Creation File
% temp_cal2.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This function creates a banded matrix co-efficient of the discretized ODE %=================================================================== % <INPUT> : N = no. of nodes in x, M = no. of nodes in r <OUTPUT> : C = Banded matrix %=================================================================== function[c] = temp_cal2(N,M) n = (N-2) * (M-2) ; % gives the length of the T vector %=================================================================== % Call the inputfile for parameters %=================================================================== reformer_inputfile2 % call reformer_inputfile for parameters %=================================================================== % Build first row of c matrix %===================================================================
69
s = N-1 ; c = [] ; % initiate the matrix as null matrix first_row = zeros(1,n) ; % populate the 1st row with zeros first_row(1) = -(p+2*q+2*r) ; first_row(2) = r ; first_row(s) = p+q ; c = [c;first_row] ; % update c matrix - 1 row %=================================================================== % Build 2nd four row of c matrix %=================================================================== u = N-2 ; for j = 2:u %populate the 2nd row to(N-2)th row second_row = zeros(1,n) ; % populate the rows with zeros second_row(j-1) = r ; second_row(j) = -(p+2*q+2*r) ; second_row(j+1) = r ; second_row(j+u) = p+q ; c = [c;second_row] ; % update c matrix 2-5 rows end %=================================================================== % Build middle rows of c matrix %=================================================================== s = N-2 ; u = (N-2)*(M-3) ; v = N-1 ; d = 2-N ; for j = v:u %populate the middle rows mid_row = zeros(1,n) ; %populate the middle rows with zeros mid_row(j+d) = q ; mid_row(j-1) = r ; mid_row(j) = -(p+2*q+2*r) ; mid_row(j+1) = r ; mid_row(j+s) = p+q ; temp_row = mid_row ; c = [c;temp_row] ; % update c matrix 6 -> n-6 rows end %=================================================================== % Build 2nd last 5 rows of c matrix %===================================================================
70
for j = ((N-2)*(M-3))+1:((N-2)*(M-2))-1 %populate the 2nd last rows last_ros = zeros(1,n) ; %populate the 2nd last rows with zeros last_ros(j-N+2)= q ; last_ros(j-1) = r ; last_ros(j) = -(p+2*q+2*r) ; last_ros(j+1) = r ; temp_row = last_ros ; c = [c;temp_row] ; % update c matrix 2nd last rows end %=================================================================== % Build the last row of c matrix %=================================================================== last_ro = zeros(1,n) ; % populate the last row with zeros last_ro(((N-2)*(M-2))-N+2) = q ; last_ro(((N-2)*(M-2))-1) = r ; last_ro((N-2)*(M-2)) = -(p+2*q+2*r) ; temp_row = last_ro ; c = [c;temp_row] ; % update c matrix last row %%===============================================================%%
Calculation Of Rate Of Reaction
% reaction_rate2.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This program calculates the rate of reaction according... % to Nakagaki or Ohl's model % This function is called by matrix_reformer2.m %============================================================== % <INPUT>: brings in T vector, flag chosen as Nakagaki, n... % <OUTPUT>: Rate of reaction %=============================================================== function [r1] = reaction_rate2(x,flag)
%===============================================================
% Call the inputfile for parameters
%===============================================================
reformer_inputfile2;
71
%===============================================================
% FLAG 0: Calculate rate of reaction according to Nakagaki
%===============================================================
n = length(x) ;
r(n) = 0 ; %initialize rates at 'n' nodes to be zero
if flag == 0 % Nakagaki's model chosen
for j = 1:n
if x(j) > 513 %specify limit of temp for 'm'
m = -10 ;
else
m = 0 ;
end
r1(j) = k0*(P^l)*((x(j)/513)^m)*(exp(-E/R*x(j)))*(cm^nn) ; % calculate rate at each
node
end
%=============================================================== % FLAG 1: Calculate rate of reaction accoding to Ohl (we dont use... % this for time being) %===============================================================
elseif flag == 1 % Ohl's model chosen
for j = 1:n
bm(j) = 0.154256e-6*(exp(32342.474 /(R*x(j)))) ;
%calculate adsorption rate of methanol as fctn of T
bw(j) = 0.623242e-8*(exp(34883.8183 / (R*x(j)))) ;
%calculate adsorption rate of water as fctn of T
nu = 0.5 ;
X(j) = -102,679.506/(R*x(j)) ;
r1(j) = (mc*nu*km*bm(j)*pm)...
/(1+bm(j)*pm*bw(j)*pw) ;
% calculate rate at each node
end
72
%===============================================================
% ANY OTHER FLAG : Null
%===============================================================
else
error('wrong flag');
end
%%==============================================================%%
Input File By Including Convection Co-Efficients
% reformer_inputfile.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This program specieies all the reformer parameters including convection terms % This program is called by the m-file temp_cal1 %================================================================ % Catalyst bed - Gas mixture effective parameters %================================================================ ro_eff = 1983 ; % effective mass density of catalyst gas... %mixture in [kg/m3] C_eff = 900 ; % effective specific heat of catalyst gas... %mixture in [J/kgK] K_eff = 5.00 ; % effective conductivity of catalyst... %gas mixture [W/mK] C_g = 1911.6; ro_g = 0.8640; vel = 0.01 ; %[m/s] %================================================================ % Reformer Dimensions (Cylindrical) %================================================================ Radius = 0.5 ; % Radius of reformer [m] Length = 0.5 ; % Length of reformer [m] %================================================================ %Discretisation Parameters %================================================================
73
M = 30 ; N = 30 ; n = (N-2)*(M-2) ; del_r = Radius / N ; % Size of finite element along Radius del_x = Length / M ; % Size of finite element along Length %================================================================ % Co-efficients of PDE and ODE %================================================================ alpha = K_eff / ( ro_eff * C_eff ) ; % co-efficient to have Tdot on LHS for i = 1 : M-1 p(i) = alpha / ( del_r * i* del_r ); % Co-efficient of del r term of ODE end q = alpha / ( del_r * del_r ) ; % Co-efficients of del r2 term of ODE r = alpha / ( del_x * del_x ) ; % Co-efficients of del x2 term of ODE s = (vel*0.5*ro_g*C_g)/ (ro_eff*C_eff); %================================================================ % Nakagaki reaction rate constants %================================================================ k0=1.35e6 ; % reaction rate constant [mol/(g_cat.s.atm)] P=15 ; l=0.13 ; E=1e5 ; % [J/mol] nn=1.3 ; R=8.3143 ; % Universal gas constant %================================================================ % Ohl's reaction rate constants %================================================================ pm=10 ; % partial pressure of methanol pw=20 ; % partial pressure of methanol cm=30 ; % partial pressure of methanol %mc=40 ; % partial pressure of methanol %================================================================ % Methanol properties %================================================================
74
Er=201e3 ; % heat of reaction per mole of methanol consumed %================================================================ for i = 1 : M-2 dia1(i) = -(p(i+1) +2*q+2*r+s) ; dia2(i) = (p(i+1) +q) ; end dia11 = -2*del_r*p(1) - (2*q)-(2*r) - s ; dia22 = del_r*p(1)+q ; rs = r+s ; %%===============================================================%%
Differential Equation Calculation Including Convection Term
% matrix_reformer2.m % Mohua Nath 04/23/2006 % Revision 2 % This function executes the S-function that solves the N set of ODE's % Invoked by the SIMULINK program matrix_sim_reformer2.sim %=================================================================== % <INPUT>: t= time ; x= vector of stateS ; u= vector of I/Ps ,... % flag= from simulink <OUTPUT>: sys = to simulink, x0 = I.Cs %=================================================================== function[sys, x0] = matrix_reformer5(t,x,u,flag) %=================================================================== % Call the inputfile for parameters %=================================================================== reformer_inputfile5 ; %=================================================================== % Flag 0 : Sends sizes and initial state vector to Simulink %=================================================================== if flag == 0 size_states = n ; % continuous time states size_disc_stats = 0 ; % number of discrete time states size_outputs = n ; % number of outputs to view size_inputs = 0 ; % number of inputs size_disc_roots = 0 ; % always 0 for now
75
size_feedthrough = 0 ; % algebraic feed required? (no) sys = [size_states, size_disc_stats, size_outputs, size_inputs, size_disc_roots, size_feedthrough] ; % column vector of sizes from... % m file to simulink at flag=0 x0 = [523*ones(n,1)] ; % column vector of initial conditions %=================================================================== % Flag 1 : Brings T (x = state vector) from Simulink and Sends Tdot.. %(sys = state derivative) to Simulink %=================================================================== elseif abs(flag) == 1 %____________________________________________________________________ % Call the reaction_rate2 file to calculate rate of reaction %-------------------------------------------------------------------- [r1] = reaction_rate2(x,0); % send 'T' for Nakagaki rate, and n %____________________________________________________________________ % Calculate the heat of reaction at every node %-------------------------------------------------------------------- n =(N-2)*(M-2) ; E(n) = 0 ; % initialise E reaction at all nodes as 0 for j = 1:n mc = 2 * pi * r1(j) * del_r * del_x ; %mass of control volume E(j) = mc*Er*r1(j)/(ro_eff*C_eff) ; % energy consumed at all node end %____________________________________________________________________ % Imposing of B.C's at reformer wall = 400 C = 673 K ! %-------------------------------------------------------------------- wall = 560 ; % create a vector of wall boundary nodes
76
%____________________________________________________________________ % Imposing of B.C's at reformer input --> 100 C = 373 K ! %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ inlet1 = 520 ; % create a vector of inlet boundary nodes %____________________________________________________________________ % Impose the Nuemann condition at the exit of the reformer %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ st = 1 ; for i = N-1 : (N-2)*2 mid_rad(st) = x(i) ; st = st + 1 ; end j = 0 ; for i = 1 : M-2 cc = (N-2)*i - 1 ; j = j+1 ; exit1(j) = x(cc) ; end %_____________________________________________________________________ % calculate the Tdot...i.e temperature gradient at every node %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tdot(1) = dia11*x(1) + rs*x(2) + dia22*x(N-1) + dia22*mid_rad(1) + r*inlet1 - E(1) ; % Tdot for 1st row for j = 2:N-2 Tdot(j) = r*x(j-1) + dia11*x(j) + rs*x(j+1) + dia22*x(N-2+j) + dia22*mid_rad(j) - E(j) ; %Tdot for 2nd four rows if j == N-2 Tdot(j) = r*x(j-1)+ dia11*x(j) + dia22*x(N-2+j) + dia22*mid_rad(j) + rs*exit1(1) - E(j) ; else end end d = 1 ; for j = (N-1):(N-2)*(M-3)
77
Tdot(j) = (q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + rs*x(j+1))+ dia2(d)*x(j+N-2) - E(j) ; % Tdot for middle rows for f = 1 : M-3 if j == ((N-1)*f)-(f-1) d = d+1 ; Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + dia1(d)*x(j) + rs*x(j+1) + dia2(d)*x(j+N-2)+r*inlet1 - E(j) ; elseif j == (f+1)*(N-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + dia2(d)*x(j+N-2) + ... rs*exit1(f+1) - E(j) ; end end end el=60; for j = (N-2)*(M-3)+1:(N-2)*(M-2) if j == (N-1)*d d = d + 1 ; else end if j < (N-2)*(M-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + % Tdot for last 5 rows else end if j == (N-2)*(M-3)+1 Tdot(j)= q*x(j-N+2) + dia1(d)*x(j) + r*x(j+1) + ... q*wall+p(d)*wall+r*inlet1 - E(j) ; elseif j == (N-2)*(M-2) Tdot(j) = q*x(j-N+2) + r*x(j-1) + dia1(d)*x(j) + q*wall+p(d)*wall + ... r*exit1(M-2) - E(j) ; end end sys = Tdot(1:n)' ;
78
%=================================================================== % Flag 3 : Choose the outputs from the state vector 'T' (or x) %=================================================================== elseif flag == 3 for j = 1:n y(j) = x(j) ; % We choose the entire T at all nodes end sys = y' ; % send column vector of outputs %=================================================================== % Any other Flag : undefined....so return an empty vector %=================================================================== else % All other flags are irrelevant to the problem sys = [] ; end %%===============================================================%%
79
APPENDIX B TEST BED BUS-2 CONTROL LOGIC
S10.6
TURN OFF P-02NEAT CH3OH TO RF Bar
S 7.1
Set Parameters for P-02
Calculate p for P-01,Premix Pump
Set SV of P-01=p
Set Parameters of P-01
Start time t-70For CHOPPER = 0.15
T-700.15
over?
Turn CHOPPER on
Set Timer t-71 to 0.1s
T-710.1sup?
S7.2
H-01 Constant Loop heater on
H-01Started
?
Start Timer t-72 =20 sec
T-72 20s up?
A
X
N
N
N
A
S 7.3
H-02 heater on
H-02Start?
Start Timer t-73 =15 sec
T-73 15s up?
X
S 7.4
H-03Start?
Start Timer t-74 =15 sec
T-74 15s up?
H-03 heater on
S 7.5
H-04Start?
Start Timer t-75 =60 sec
H-04 heater on
X
T-75 60s up?
Set P-01 premix P10 parameters
S 7.6
TCA 601Base Temp
≥ 1oC
N
N
X
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
S 7.7 S10.9
N
Y
Y
80
81
START
Set Premix Flow
Turn OFF Neat Methanol to burner (p-02)
Turn on CHOPPER
Turn on H-01-04 heaters in coolant loop
one by one
Set Premix Flow to RF
Check Burner BU
Temp >1 o C
STOP
N
Y
SOV-930 CLOSE, NO CO2 PURGING IN RF
S 6.4
SOV-210 OPEN, LET AIR TO CATHODE
CHECK FC VOLTAGE >
150 V?
CALCULATE B-01SV PARAMETER
TURN ON BLOWER TO CATHODE B-01
SET BLOWER B-01PARAMETERS
T-64 40 SEC
UP?S 6.5
START TIMER T-65 TO 28 SEC
N
Y
Y
N
S 6.41
ES-1
FC VOLTAGE >150 V?
Y
N
S 6.6
S10.6
T-6528 SEC OVER?
N
Y
A
SOV-920 CLOSE, NO CO2 PURGING OF FC
S 6.1
START TIMER t-60 TO 1 SEC
T-601 SEC
OVER?
N
Y
S 6.2
SOV-160 OPEN, OPEN FLUE GAS LINE
SOV-150 OPEN, OPEN REFORMATE LINE
START A TIMER t-61 TO 1 SEC
T-611 SEC
OVER?
N
Y
S 6.3
SOV-170 CLOSE, CLOSE ANODE VENT
FROM FC
SOV-180 CLOSE, CLOSE BYPASS VALVE TO FC
START TIMER t-63 to 2 sec , t-64 to 40 sec
T-632 SEC
OVER?
N
Y
A
S10.5
82
START
WAIT 1 SEC
STOP CO2 TO FC
OPEN FLUE GAS LINE
OPEN REFORMATE LINE
WAIT 1 SEC
IF FC VOLTAGE >
150 V
N
Y
CLOSE FC VENT
DON’T BYPASS FLUE TO FC
WAIT 2 SEC
NO CO2 TO RF , BU
SUPPLY AIR TO CATHODE
CALCULATE BLOWER FOR AIR TO CATHODE PARA
SET PARAMETERS
WAIT 1 SEC
A
A
NO CO2 TO RF , BU
ES-1
WAIT 1 SEC
S10.6
IF FC VOLTAGE >
150 VES-1
83
S10.5
Trigger S13.1
Turn off Igniter -1
Turn off Igniter -2
Turn off Neat CH3OH(P-01) Burner 1
Set Parameter of P-02
Turn off Neat CH3OH Burner 2
Set Parameter of P-04
Close Neat CH3OH Valve S120
Close Premix Value S130
Set Blower (RF) Parameter -02
Set CH3OH heater H-05 Parameters
Turn off H-05
Set P-03 Neat CH3OH Parameters
Turn off P-03
Set start up blower -3 Paramters
Set P-01 premix pump parameters
Turn P-01 OFF – No Premix.
.Blower -01 parameter
set ??? To cathode.
Blower -01 Turn OffNo Air to Cathode
Trigger S13.2
Y
S13.3
INCREASE COOLANT PUMP P-05 SETTINGS
??? COOLANT
LOOP TEMP > 60 C
Start Timer t-130 to 5 min
IS 5 min of T-130 over?
Trigger S13.5
Close SOV 170,180, FC VENT, FC BY PASS
FC TEMP <120 C
TCA -700
TCA -101RF TEMP<
170C
S13.6 PROCESS
Set B-03 BLOWER Startup Parameters
Turn off B-03
Turn off P-05
S13.7
?????? Blower B-02 Parameters
B-02 Off
CHECK S13.6
Wait for Sometime?
Y
CHECK S13.7
S10.1
S13.8 Trigger
Set P-05 coolant pump control
X
X
84
If Coolant Temp > 60 C
N
Y
Turn off Igniter 1 & 2
Stop Neat CH3OH to Burner 1 & 2
Stop Premix to Reformer
Increase Blower to Burners Parameters
Stop Air to FC Cathode
S
Increase Coolant Pump Settings
Start Timer . Wait for 5
Mins
Close FC Vent, By Pass Valve to FC
Is temp of FC < 120 C?
Turn off Startup Blower Coolant Pump
Is temp of FC < 120 C?
Turn off RF Blower
Y
Y
N
N
Y
NORMAL SHUTDOWN S
Wait Till FC Temp< 120 C
Wait Till RFTemp<170C
Wait for Some Time
S10.1
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
X
X
85
S10.9
S8.1
Set Timer T-80 to 15 Sec
SCS COMMAND
DOWN
Is 15 Sec of T-80 up?
S8.2
SCS Command
up?
SCS COMMAND
STAY
S 8.1
STAY CONTROL
STEP DOWN
CONTROL
S 8.3STEP UP CONTROL
S 8.5
H.01 OFF?
H.01 OFF
SET T.81 = 5 SEC
T.81 – 5 SEC UP?
S 8.6
H-02 OFF?
H-02 OFF
SET T-82 =5SEC
T-82 -> 5 SEC UP?
STEP UP CONTROL
S 8.6
H-03OFF?B A
A
H.03 OFF
Set T-3 = 5 sec
S 8.8
T-3 5 sec up?
B
T-3 5 sec up?
H-04 Off
Set T-84 = 5 sec
T-84 5 sec up?
S 8.9
Set up Control Parameter SET
FC power
>14 KW
Set T-85 = 24 sec
<= FC power
?
T-85 24 sec up?
C
Chopper Error FC Current
<0A
T-703 sec up?
T-70=3 sec
C
S 8.31CHOPPER
S7.2
N
YB
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y N
N Y
Y
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
NN
YY
N
NN
N
Y
Y
86
FC POWER < 11 Kw?
STEP DOWN
CONTROL
S 8.11
H-04 TURN ON
H-04 ON?
SET T-84 = 5 SEC
T-845 sec?
S 8.12
H-03 ON?
H-03 turn ON
SET T-85 = 5 SEC
S 8.13
H-02 ON?
T-855 sec?
H-02 turn ON A
A
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
A
T-82 5 sec up?
STEP DOWN CONTROL PARAMETERS
IS H-02 ON?
S 8.14
H-01TURN ON
C
Set T-82 = 5 Sec
A1
Y N
Y
N
Y
Y STAYCONTROL
FC CURRENT
≤ 30A
S 4.5 STANDBY REQ ON?
S 8.17 | STOP
S 10.10 Flg
S 8.17
Set T-76 =3 Sec
T-76 5 sec up?
C8 =3?
C8 UP
S 7.2
N
Y
STOP isSCS
command?
Y
N
N
N
Y
Z
ES -1.2
N
Y
Y
87
Is SCS command
UP
START
WAIT 15 SEC
Turn off H-01 to 04 after 5 sec interval
Wait till FC o/p power ≥ 11 kW
Wait 24 Sec
If FC Current≤
0A
S 7.2Chopper Error
Is SCS command DOWN
IS FC power
< 11 KW?
Turn on H-01 to 04 after 5 secons
Is SCS CommdSTAY
Is FC Current ≤
30A
Check if Stdby OP commd
from SCS
ES 1.2
Is any heater
already on?
Step Down Control parameter
Wait 3 Sec
IF counter
= 3
S 7.2.STOP
N N
N
N
Y
Y Y
Y N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
88
S1.10 PROCESS
T-23 5 sec up?
S2.1 PROCESS RF
Set B-02 PID Settings
X
Start at Timer(t-23) to 5 sec
Set B-02 PID Again
S 2.2 Process
IG -01 Ignitor ON
Start Timer T-26 to 10 sec
T-2610 sec up?
S 2.3
Start Timer T-21 to 30 sec
Turn P-02 ON,Neat Methanol to Burner
Set P-02 Parameters
T-25 2 sec up?Start T-25 to 2 Sec
A
89
T-21 ,30 Sec up?
Set Blower to RF Burner, B-02 param.
A
S 2.4
Burner Temp
TCA 601 ≥ 200C
Start a Timer T-22 to 3 sec
T-22,3 Sec up?
Burner Temp TA
601 ≥ 200C
S 2.5
Turn off Ingitor in RF Burner
S 2.6
RF Burner TCA 101 >
200C
S10.4?S 2.15 RF
B
Turn off Ignitor in RF Burner
S 2.20
COUNTER C2 ON
Turn off MethanolIn F02 RF 8V
Set P-01 parameters
Start timer t-24 = 30 sec
S 2.21
Set RF burner param
C2 UP?
S 2.40
ES-1
X
S 2.7
Turn off Neat CH3OH to burner (p-02)
S10.4?
X
Set P-02 Parameters
Set Blower to RF BUB-02 Parameters
S 2.8
RF temp TCA 101 ≤
225C
B
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
NN
Y
Y
90
APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL SCHEME
Main Routine
Introduction
The main routine, called the S10 routine, summarizes the entire process of operating the
bus. This routine calls for and activates other subroutines that carry out their individual sub
processes. The main functions in this routine are start up of the bus, check for emergency shut
down conditions, chopper control and normal operation and shut down.
This process starts with initiating RS-232 serial port communication between FCIC (Fuel
Cell Internal Controller) and SCS (Subsystem Control System). After ensuring that all pumps
and solenoids are in their initial normal position, It turns on the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and
calls a sub routine to start the Fuel cell and Reformer. It waits for 24 minutes to turn on the
reformer and bring up the temperature of catalyst bed to its minimum operating temperature.
Supply of air to cathode is done and load is increased through chopper control. Throughout the
process, in every scan, check is made for shut down request or other abnormal condition, in
which case the process is interrupted by calling a sub-process that walks the system through a
shut-down.
Pseudo code description
A short description follows of the main process flow in the form of a sequential pseudo code:
MAIN PROCESS (S 10)
• Initialize RS232 Communication • Turn on SOV PUMP
o Returns a failure flag if CO2 purge is ON • Stop CO2 purge on failure • Check if “FC” ON is requested • Turn “ON” APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) • Start Reformer (S1)
o Reformer Blower B-02 turn “ON” o Igniter IG-01 turn “ON”
91
o SOV for Neat methanol SOV-120 turn “ON” o Vent for FC SOV-170 turn “ON” o By-Pass Valve SOV-170 turn “ON” o Pump from Neat methanol, P-02 turn “ON” o When temperature of burner is adequate, igniter IG-01 turn “OFF”
• Start Fuel Cell (S 3) o Start up Blower B-03 turn “ON” o Igniter IG-02 turn “ON” o Adjust coolant flow through P-05 pump o Start neat methanol flow by P-04 turn “ON” o Put B-03 on PID control’ o When temperature is adequate, Igniter IG-02 turn “OFF” o When temperature of coolant is steady, neat methanol pump P-03 turn “OFF” o If temperature of coolant falls restart procedure S 3
• Reformer gas cooler, E-03 turn “ON” • Heat exchanger for neat methanol to reformer burner, H-05 turn “ON” • Try to reach reformer operating temperature for 24 minutes
o On failure ES-01 sub routine (S 12) is called for emergency shutdown • Check if reformer temperature is steady.
o On failure restart S 1, S 3 • Air to Cathode Blower B-01 turn “ON” • Coolant loop heaters H-01 to H-04 turn “ON” • Chopper turn “ON” • Wait till reformer temperature reaches above 200C • Check if FC temperature> 150 C
o On failure adjust chopper, turn on H-01 to H-04 o Else Reformer and Fuel Cell turn “OFF” and restart process S 1 and S 3 at step 2
• On shutdown request start S12 emergency shut-down • If standby is requested, wait 10 minutes and restart S 1 and S 3 at step 2
Discussion of Main Process
The process begins when the power “ON” button is pressed by the operator. This action
first initiates the RS- 232 serial port communications between FCIC which is a MICREX 140th
PLC and SCS which is a Windows based Lab View Controller and DAS. The solenoid valves
and pumps are checked. If they are not normally “ON” or “Normally OFF” condition then check
is made whether CO2 purge is being made on the system and corrected if required.
A sub process is then initiated whose main function is to bring the temperature of the
reformer to its operating temperature. The Blower to reformer burner, igniter, and solenoid valve
from Neat Methanol Tank, Vent for Fuel Cell are turned on. Also the by-pass valve which
92
returns the tail reformate gas back to the Fuel Cell instead of the burner is turned on. It also starts
neat Methanol flow into the burner and turns off the igniter if burner temperature is adequate.
At the same time, another sub process is started that starts the Fuel Cell and brings it up to
its operating temperature. Its main function is to turn the Blower of start –up burner and Igniter
on. And turn off the igniter and stop fuel flow when adequate temperature is reached.
Again at the same time as above two processes, cooler is turned on to cool the reformate
going to the Fuel Cell. Along with this heat exchangers are turned “on” in the neat methanol line
in order to vaporize the methanol before it reaches the burner.
The process allows 24 minutes for the reformer temperature to reach operating condition of
which if exceeded leads towards emergency shutdown.
Once the temperature is steady in reformer, air is supplied to cathode. The chopper is
adjusted to increase the load. If the temperature reaches 150 C, the system is shutdown and
restarted. An operator instigated shut down request leads the system to a normal shutdown
process.
S1 Sub-Routine
Introduction
The S1 sub-routine, describes the process of turning on the reformer. Its man function is to
“warm-up” the reformer catalyst bed upto its minimum operating temperature. This entire
process takes 24 minutes.
This process is instigated by the main process S10. It turns on the blower and igniter and
the valves for fuel flow. It adjusts the air flow through PID control so that the temperature of the
reformer is brought upto 180C and maintained at the same temperature throughout the entire
operation of the Bus.
93
Pseudo Code Description
A short description follows of the main process flow in the form of a sequential pseudo code:
Reformer startup Process (S 1)
• Blower to reformer Burner, BU- 01 turn “ON” • Adjust PID settings on Blower, B- 02 • Igniter IG-01 turn “ON” • Neat Methanol valve SOV-120 turn “ON” • FC Anode vent solenoid valve SOV-170 turn “ON” • By pass valve SOV- 180 turn “ON” • Neat Methanol pump P-02 turn “ON” • Adjust PID settings on Blower, B-02 • Check burner, BU-01 temperature above 200?
o If no, wait for 30 sec then instigate ES-1, S 12 process after IG- 01, o P-02 turn “OFF” and adjustment of PID settings of B-02 o If yes, next step
• Igniter IG-01 turn “OFF” • Wait till bottom of reformer temperature >180 C • Neat methanol (liquid)flow to burner by Pump P-02 turn “OFF” • Adjust PID of Blower to maintain RF temperature below 225 C Discussion of Process S1
When instigated by main process S10, sub process S1 starts. It first turns on the blower of
the reformer burner by energizing an auxiliary relay coil in the FCIC. The PID settings of the
blower are adjusted to give 40% output. After a wait of 30 seconds the blower PID settings are
again adjusted, this time reduced by 16.7%.
The igniter then is turned on which starts the flame in the burner in order to raise the
temperature inside the super heater which carries the fuel-water premix. After a wait of 10
seconds, solenoid valve from the neat methanol tank is opened. The FC anode vent is opened and
also the FC by pass valve. Initially the residual reformate coming out of the FC called the tail gas
is returned to the Fuel Cell in order to raise the temperature of the fuel cell to its operating
temperature.
After a wait of 1 sec, the pump that supplies neat methanol to the reformer burner is turned
on. Settings for neat methanol pump are adjusted to 50% output. After an interval of 2 sec the
94
Blower PID settings are again changed. At this point if the burner temperature is above 200C
then the ignition is assumed successful. If the flame temperature is steady for 3 seconds after
this, the igniter is turned off. System waits till reformer temperature reaches 180 C after which
pump of liquid methanol is turned off to the burner and now the burner continues combustion
with flue gas from FC. Settings are adjusted for the pump of liquid neat methanol to 0 and
reformer blower PID settings are re-adjusted for hydrogen fuel. The temperature of the reformer
is maintained at 225C by adjusting the blower settings. Completion of this step instigates sub-
process S2.
In case of burner not being able to build flame for 30 seconds, the igniter, neat methanol is
turned off. Liquid neat methanol pump is adjusted to 0 and blower PID settings are increased to
70%. This step next instigates S12 or emergency shutdown sub process.
S2 Sub-Routine
Introduction
The S2 sub- routine, describes the completion of S1 process of turning on the reformer. Its
main function is to increase the temperature of the reformer catalyst bed by adjusting the blower
parameters. Increase of the reformer temperature to its maximum operating temperature
optimizes the fuel combustion efficiency to produce more hydrogen.
This process is instigated by the sub process S1. It turns on the blower and the igniter and
the valves for fuel flow. It adjusts the airflow through PID control so that the temperature of the
reformer is brought upto 225C and maintained at the same temperature throughout the entire
operation of the Bus.
Pseudo Code Description
A short description follows of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudo code:
Reformer temperature increase sub process (S2)
95
• Initiated by the end of process S1 • Blower B- 02 PID setting adjusted • Igniter IG- 01 turn “ON” • Check if burner BU- 01 temperature is >200 C
o If no, then instigate ES-1, S12 o If yes, next step
• Igniter IG-01 turn “OFF” • Wait till bottom of reformer temperature >240 C • Neat methanol (liquid) flow to burner by pump P-02 turn “OFF” • Adjust PID of the Blower to maintain RF temperature below 24O C
Discussion of Process S 1
When instigated by main process S1, sub process S2 starts. It first turns on the blower of
the reformer burner by energizing an auxiliary relay coil in the FCIC. The PID settings of the
blower are adjusted to 16.7% output.
The igniter then is turned on which starts the flame in the burner in order to raise the
temperature inside the super heater which carries the fuel-water premix. After a wait of 10
seconds, solenoid valve from the neat methanol tank is opened. The settings of this pump are
adjusted to 50%. The blower settings are changed is 45%. If the burner temperature does not rise
at this point after 30 seconds the system is lead to emergency shutdown. If the burner
temperature rises and is steady for 3 seconds then the neat methanol flow is turned off and the
system waits till reformer temperature reaches 225 C.
S3 Sub-Routine
Introduction
The S1 sub-routine, describes the process of running on the start-up burner BU-02. Its
main function is to start the flame in the start-up burner. The purpose of the start –up burner is to
heat the fuel cell stack upto its minimum operating temperature of 150C. The coolant loop which
takes away heat from the Fuel Cell during normal operating condition, at this point acts as a
heating loop as the same coolant liquids adds heat to the cathode in order to raise its temperature.
96
This heating loop also derives heat by 4 electric heaters H- 01 to H- 04 which are adjusted
according to the load at the output of the fuel cell.
This process is instigated by the main process S10. It turns on the blower and igniter and
the valves for the fuel flow. It adjusts the air flow through PID control and maintains the
temperature of the loop below 165C, this process ends when FC has reached a temperature of
150C.
Pseudo code description
A short description of the main process flow in the form of a sequential pseudo code:
Start up Burner on Process (S3)
• Start-up Blower, BU-02 turn “ON” • Check if coolant temperature>=60C?
o If <=60C decrease coolant flow o If yes, increase coolant flow
• Wait 30 seconds • Adjust Blower B-03 • Igniter IG-02 turn “ON” • Wait 5 secs • Start neat methanol flow to start up burner by P-04 turn “ON” • Adjust blower B-03 PID settings • Check if temperature of start-up heat exchanger is between 30C-400C?
o If >400C, wait 15 secs, If still above 400C instigate ES-1, S12 and restart o If yes, next step
• Igniter IG-02 turn “OFF” • Check coolant temperature and adjust flow of coolant • If coolant temperature> 165C, then P-02 turn “OFF” • Adjust blower B-03 till coolant<135C • Wait till FC reaches 150C • Wait 15 secs and restart procedure if temperature is unsteady
Discussion of Sub process S3
When instigated by main process S10, sub process S3 STARTS. It first turns on the start-
up blower of the heat exchanger. It then checks for the temperature of the coolant loop. If the
temperature is above 60C the coolant flow is decreased and if it is below 60C, the coolant flow is
increased by adjusting the pump P-05.
97
After a wait of 30 seconds, the Blower B-03 parameters are adjusted and Igniter is turned
on. After a wait of 5 seconds, neat methanol tank solenoid valve, SOV-120is turned on. The
blower PID settings are again adjusted to maintain the temperature of the heat exchanger
between 300C to 400C. Upon attaining this temperature the igniter is turned off and coolant
temperature is checked and flow adjusted accordingly.
System waits till coolant temperature reaches 165C. When this temperature is reached the
neat methanol flow to start up the burner is closed. After a wait of 30 secs, the blower parameters
are adjusted till FC reaches 150C.
If the heat exchanger takes more that 15seconds to reach temperature between 300C and
400C since the neat methanol is supplied, then the system undergoes an emergency shutdown
and after a wait of 15 secs, the process restarts.
S4 Sub Routine
Introduction
The S10.3 flag in the main process S10 instigates S4 sub routine. This describes the
process of hot-standby required during start-up. Its main function is to make the system wait for
30 minutes and maintain the temperature of fuel cell upto 150C.
The S10.3 flag is raised when a hot – standby is requested in the main process.
Pseudo code description
A short description follows of the main process flow in the form os a sequential
pseudocode.
START-UP BURNER ON PROCESS (S3)
• Start-up timer to 30 mins • Check if hot standby command is requested • If yes, wait 30 ins to restart procedure • For 30 ins, heaters H01 to H04 turn “ON” • Maintain FC temperature to 150C
98
Discussion of Sub Process S4
When instigated by main process S10, sub process S4 starts. It first turns on a timer to 30
seconds. It then checks the FC temperature to be 150C. If not, it turns on heaters in the coolant
loop to increase or decrease the temperature. After a wait of 10 mins, it checks for hot – standby
off request where-in the system continues normal operation, else it returns to normal operation
after a wait of 3 seconds.
S6 Sub routine
Introduction
The S1 sub routine, describes the process of turning on operation of system from start-up
to normal mode. Its main function is to stop the purging of CO2 and stop the return of gas to the
fuel cell and maintain a steady voltage output at the fuel cell load.
Pseudocode description
A short description follows of the main process flow in the form of a sequential pseudocode:
START-UP BURNER ON PROCESS (S6)
• Purging of CO2 to the FC turn “OFF” • Flue gas line to reformer burner turn “ON” • Reformate line turn “ON” • Wait 1 sec • FC vent “OFF” • By-pass valves that returns tail gas to FC turn “OFF” • CO2 purging to reformer and burner turn “OFF” • Air supply to cathode turn “ON” • Calculate blower, B01 parameters for air requirement to cathode • Check if FC vtg >150V?
o If no, wait 40 seconds, if still no, then lead to ES-1, S12 o If yes, next step
• Check if FC vtg>150V? o If no, then lead to ES-1, S12 o If yes, next step o Instigate hot-standby
99
Discussion of Sub Process S6
When instigated by main process S10.5, that requests hot standby, sub process S5 starts. It
stops the CO2 purging of the Fuel Cell Stack. CO2 is purged during conditions when bus is not
in operation. Pressurizing the catalyst bed and FC by CO2 ensures that no oxidation of the above
two takes place. However before the normal operation of the bus, the CO2 purging has to be
stopped.
Next step is to open the flue gas line so that the un-used hydrogen at the FC can be used at
the reformer burner as fuel. This not only improves the efficiency of the system but also saves a
lot of fuel in form of neat methanol. The reformate line is opened as the product gases from
premix combustion containing hydrogen is supplied to the fuel cell stack.
After a wait of 1 second, the FC vent is closed and also the by – pass valves which allowed
the tail gas to be returned to the fuel cell stack.
CO2 purging is stopped into the reformer and burner and air is supplied to the cathode.
Air requirement into the cathode is calculated as the parameter settings of the blower and
these settings changed too supply correct amount of air. If at this point FC voltage is not steady
at 150V for 40 seconds, then emergency shutdown occurs, else hot standby is again instigated.
100
S7 Sub-Routine
Introduction
The S7 sub-routine, describes the process of adjusting premix fuel flow according to the
change of load at the fuel cell output. This process is instigated at the end of subprocess S6. Its
main function is to set premix flow, turn on chopper adjust heaters in coolant loop and maintain
burner temperature.
Pseudo code description A short description of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudocode follows:
ADJUST PREMIX FUEL FLOW PROCESS (S7)
• Neat Methanol to burner B-02 by P-02 turn “OFF” • Set premix flow • Adjust pump P – 01 according to setting parameters calculated • Chopper turn “ON” • Heaters H – 01 to H – 04 turn “ON” one by one as load gets changed • Set premix flow according to load • Wait till burner temperature has reached minimum operating temperature • End Process by Instigating S 10.9
Discussion of Sub Process S7
When instigated by sub process S6, this sub process starts. First it turns off the neat
methanol supply to the reformer burner as at this point hydrogen in the flue gas is enough to
maintain the flame.
The premix flow rate is calculated and parameters of the pump for premix flow into
reformer is changed. The Chopper is turned on that adjusts the load at the output and gradually
increases output from 0 to 100%. The heaters in coolant loop are turned on to maintain the FC
temperature to 150oC.
101
As the load varies the premix flow is adjusted to meet the hydrogen requirement at the FC.
After ensuring that the reformer burner has maintained its steady temperature the process then
instigates the next sub process S8.
S8 Sub-Routine Introduction
The S8 sub-routine, describes the process of chopper control at the fuel cell output load. Its
main function is to take necessary action according to chopper command from the SCS and to
adjust the heaters in the coolant.
As the chopper increases the load at the output FC draws more current and as a result the
temperature goes up. However when the load is suddenly dropped the heat generated is not
enough to maintain the temperature at the Fuel Cell stack, due to this reason we need to adjust
the heaters to maintain a steady temperature at the FC.
Pseudo code description
A short description of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudo code
follows:
CHOPPER CONTROL PROCESS (S 8) • Check if SCS command is UP/DOWN/STAY • If UP:
o Heaters H – 01 to H – 04 turn “OFF” one after another in 5 seconds interval each. o If any heater is on then adjust step up control parameters o Wait till FC O/P power ≥ 14 kW o If FC does not have control output show “Chopper Error”
• If DOWN: o Check if FC power < 11kW o If yes H – 01 to H – 04 turn “ON” one after another in 5 seconds interval between each and
restart process o If no, check if any heater is already “ON”, if “ON” step-down control parameters are
adjusted, else heaters H – 01 to H – 04 are turned “ON” and restarted. • If STAY:
o Check if FC current less than 30 A? o If yes wait 3 seconds and if still less than 30 A then lead to ES-1
102
o If above 30A, check for standby o If yes STOP and instigate S10.10 and if no, then restart
Discussion of Sub Process S8
When instigated by sub process S7, this sub process starts. First it checks for the command
from the SCS whether to step up or down the load or to stay at same level. The chopper control
at the SCS communicates with the FCIC with RS – 232 communications.
If the chopper has commanded the load to be stepped up then the heaters in the cooling
loop are turned off as there is adequate heat in the Fuel Cell. The system waits till the FC power
output reaches 14 kW. If the FC does not show any current output at this point then show copper
error.
If the chopper on the other hand has commanded a decrease in load then the heaters are
turned on one by one to maintain the temperature at 150oC and the process is restarted.
If the chopper commands a stay, the FC output current is checked if it is steady at 30A. If it
is below 30A even after a wait of 3 seconds then the system goes through emergency shut down.
If the FC output current is steady at 30A then check is made if standby is requested. If not
then the process restarts after instigating S10.10.
S9 Sub-Routine
Introduction The S9 sub – routine, describes the process of maintaining FC temperature with chopper
control scheme. Its main function is to continue with S8 process and turn on/ off the heaters to
maintain the FC temperature at 150oC.
Pseudo code description
A short description of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudocode follows:
CHOPPER CONTROL PROCESS (S 9)
• Set start-up blower B – 03 parameters.
103
• Check if FC temperature > 140oC o If no, wait for 90 seconds, If still no then lead to ES – 1 , S12 o If yes, wait for 40 seconds and go ahead
• Set start-up blower B-03 parameters • Check SCS UP/DOWN/STAY command • If UP:
o H – 01 to H – 04 turn “OFF” one after another in 5 seconds interval between each o Set step-up control parameters
• If DOWN o H – 01 to H – 04 turn “ON” one after another in 5 seconds interval between each o Set step-down control parameters
• If STAY: o Restart process after checking FC temp > 140oC
Discussion of Sub process S9
When instigated by sub process S8, this sub process starts. First it calculates and adjusts
the start-up blower parameters in order to maintain the temperature of the coolant loop.
Then it checks if FC temperature is at its operating temperature or not. If not then it leads
to emergency shut down. If it has maintained operating temperature then it waits for 40 seconds
and goes to next step of checking SCS chopper command,
If the SCS chopper command is UP, then it turns off the heaters in the coolant loop as there
is adequate heat in the system. It then changes the step-up control parameters in the SCS.
If the SCS command is DOWN, then it turns on the heaters to increase the temperature of
the FC to 150oC and changes the step down parameters in the SCS.
If the SCS command is STAY, then the process is restarted after checking that the FC
temperature has reached 140oC.
S11 Sub-Routine Introduction
The S11 sub-routine, describes the process of normal system level shutdown procedure. Its
main function is to turn off the blowers, fuel and turn on the vents and keep the blower on. The
104
normal shut down procedure is instigated by the operator when he wants to shut down the bus
from its running condition.
Pseudo code description
A short description of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudo code
follows:
NORMAL SHUT DOWN PROCESS (S 11)
• Ignitors IG – 01 and IG – 02 are turn “OFF” • Neat Methanol flow by P – 02 and P – 04 are turn “OFF” • Premix flow by P – 01 is turn “OFF” • Increase the settings of blowers B – 02 and B – 03 • Air to cathode blower B-01 is turn “OFF” • If coolant loop temperature > 60oC increase the settings of coolant flow pump, P – 05 • Wait for 5 Seconds • FC Vent SOV 170 is turn “OFF” • Wait till FC temp is < 120oC and Reformer temp < 170oC • Wait for 3 seconds • Instigate S10.1 main process
Discussion of Sub Process S11
When instigated by any abnormal condition detected during the main process S10, this sub
process starts.
The first step is to turn off all fuel supply to the burners. The premix fuel is stopped into
the reformer. Air Flow into the cathode is stopped. If the coolant temperature is above 60oC then
the coolant pump flow is increased to reduce the temperature to the FC stack.
After the system is made to wait for 5 minutes, the FC vents are closed and the bypass
valves to the FC are closed. If the temperature of the FC isles than 120oC then the start up blower
is turned off and coolant flow is also turned off.
If the temperature of the reformer is below 170oC, then the reformer blower is turned off.
105
When the temperature of the reformer and FC is below 170oC and 120oC the shutdown
procedure is considered complete and process is restarted at S10.
Then it check if FC temperature is at its operating temperature or not. If not then it leads to
emergency shut down. If it has maintained operating temperature then it waits for 40 seconds and
goes to next step of checking SCS chopper command.
If the SCS chopper command is UP, then it turns off the heaters in the coolant loop as there
is adequate heat in the system. It then changes the step-up control parameters in the SCS.
If the SCS command is DOWN, then it turns on the heaters to increase the temperature of
the FC to 150oC and changes the step down parameters in the SCS.
If the SCS command is STAY, then the process is restarted after checking that the FC
temperature has reached 140oC.
S12 Sub-Routine
The S12 Sub-routine describes the process of system level emergency shut down
procedure. Its main function is to purge the system with CO2, turn off the blowers, fuel and turn
on the vents and keep the blower on. The emergency shutdown procedure is instigated by the
main process on detection of any abnormal condition.
Pseudo code description
A short description of the main process flow in the form of sequential pseudo code
follows:
NORMAL SHUT DOWN PROCESS (S11)
• Ignitors IG – 01 and IG – 02 are turned “OFF” • Neat Methanol flow by P – 02 and P – 04 are turned “OFF” • Heaters H -01 to H – 04 turn “OFF” • Premix flow by P – 01 is turn “OFF” • Increase the settings of blowers B – 02 and B – 03 • Neat methanol heater H – 05 turn “OFF”
106
• Reformate line and flue gas line turn “OFF” • Air to cathode blower B-01 is turn “OFF” • If coolant loop temperature >60oC increase the settings of coolant flow pump, P-05 • Wair for 5 seconds. • FC Vent SOV 170 is turn “OFF” • By pass valve SOV 160 is turn “OFF” • Purge system with CO2 in Reformer, FC and burners. • If the temperature of FC < 120oC, start up blower B – 03 and coolant flow pump P-05 is turn “OFF” • If Reformer temp > 170oC reformer blowe B-02 is turn “OFF” • Wait till FC temp > 120oC and Reformer temp < 170oC • Wait for 3 seconds • Instigate S10.1 main process
Discussion of Sub Process S11
When instigated by any abnormal condition detected during the main process S10, this sub
process starts.
The first step is to purge the system with CO2. It then turns off all fuel supply to the
burners. The premix fuel is stopped into the reformer. Air flow into the cathode is stopped. If
coolant temperature is above 60oC the coolant pump flow is increased to reduce the temperature
of the FC stack,
After system is made to wait for 5 minutes, the FC vents are closed and the by pass valves
to the FC are closed. If the temperature of the FC is less than 120oC then the start up blower is
turned off and coolant flow is also turned off.
If the temperature of the reformer is below 170oC, then the reformer blower is turned off.
When the reformer and FC temperature is below 170oC and 120oC then the shut down
procedure is considered complete and process restarted at S10.
107
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. EG & G Services Parson, Inc., Fuel Cell Handbook, 5th edition, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, 2000.
2. J. Larminie, A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
3. D. Betts., Transient performance of steam reformers in the context of automotive fuel cell system integration, Ph. D Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 2005.
4. A. G. Stefanopoulou, J. T. Pukrushpan and H. Peng, Control-oriented modeling and analysis for automotive fuel cell systems, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 126 (2004).
5. L. Blomen, M. Murgerwa., Fuel Cell Systems, Plenum Press, NY, 1993.
6. K. Kreuer, W. Vielstich, A. Lamm and H. Gasteiger, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals, Technology Applications, Vol 3, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2003.
7. S. Rohit., Water Balance Considerations in Modeling of PEM Fuel Cell Systems, Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 2005.
8. G. Ohl, S. Jeffrey, S.Gene, A Dynamic Model For The Design Of Methanol To Hydrogen Steam Reformers For Transportation Applications, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Ann Arbor, 2004.
9. B. Daniel., S. Timothy, E. Paul, and R. Vernon., Review of the University of Florida Fuel Cell Bus Research, Demonstration and Education Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, 2000.
10. O. Necati., Heat Conduction, Wiley, NY, 1980.
11. T. Nakagaki, T. Ogawa, K. Murata, Y. Nakata, Development of methanol steam reformer for chemical recuperation, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 2001.
12. S. Ahmed, M. Krumpelt, Hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels for Fuel Cells, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2001.
13. H. Helms, and P. Haley, Development of a PEM Fuel Cell System for Vehicular Application, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1992.
14. S. Ahmed, R. Kumar, and Krumpelt, Development of a Catalytic Partial Oxidation Reformer for Methanol Used in Fuel Cell Propulsion Systems, San Diego, 1994,
15. Y. Choi and H. Stenger, Kinetics, simulation and optimization of methanol steam reformer for fuel cell applications, Journal of Power Sources, Bethlehem, 2004.
108
16. H. Geyer, R. Ahluwalia, M. Krumpelt, R. Kumar, Transportation Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells Systems for Different On-Board Fuels, San Diego,1994
17. J. Amphlett, R. Mann, R. Peppley, B. Stokes, Methanol Reformers for Fuel Cell Powered Vehicles: Some design considerations, Fuel Cell seminar, Phoenix, 1991.
18. N. E. Vanderborgh, R. D. McFarland, J. R. and Huff, Advanced System Analysis for Indirect Methanol Fuel Cell Power Plants for Transportation Applications, Phoenix, 1990.
19. E. Santacesaria, S. Carra, Kinetics of Catalytic Steam Reforming of Methanol in a CSTR Reactor, Applied Catálisis, 1983.
20. S. Chan and H. Wang, Thermodynamic and Kinetic Modeling of an Autothermal Methanol Reformer, Journal of Power Sources, 2004.
21. G. Ohl, J. Stein, and G. Smith, Fundamental Factors in the Design of a Fast Responding Methanol to Hydrogen Steam Reformer for Transportation Applications, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 1996.
109
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mohua Nath was born in Lumding, India, in 1979. Mohua completed her Bachelors
Degree from Cummins College of Engineering, Pune, India, 2002, in Instrumentation and
Control Engineering. After that she worked in Pune Instrumentation, a private limited company,
where she obtained hands-on experience in instrumentaion, hydraulic and pneumatic systems.
Mohua then started working towards her master’s degree at the University of Florida from
the Fall of 2004 under the guidance of Dr. W. Lear, Dr. O. Crisalle and Dr. J. Fletcher. She
started working full time in Siemens Power Generation, Orlando from January 2007. Upon
obtaining her M.S degree, Mohua plans to continue to contribute to the field of energy
generation.
110