Solutions to CN2116-JYL-2020-HW2

1) Applying the mixed flow reactor design equation to a constant density reacting
system (aqueous solution) v = v 0

Given v0  4,V  2, cA0  1, cW 0  0, c A  0.01, cW  0.0002

FA  FA0 v 0 (c A  c A0 ) 4  (0.01  1) mol

rA     1.98
V V 2 min-liter
F  FW 0 v 0 (cW  cW 0 ) 4  (0.0002  0) mol
rW  W    0.0004
V V 2 min-liter

2) Stoichiometric table analysis

Species Initial  Final

A FA0 - FA0xA FA0- FA0xA
B 0 2FA0xA 2FA0xA
Inert FI0 0 FI0
Total F0=FA0+ FI0 F=F0+ FA0xA

Short solution:
FB 2 FA0 x A 2 y A0 xA
From the stoichiometry table: yB   
F F0  FA0 x A 1  y A0 x A

Substituting yB  0.1, y A0  0.1, → xA  0.526

Long solution:

F
 1  y A0 xA
F0
FB 2 FA0 x A
cB   ,
v v
v F T P0
P v  FRT  
v0 F0 T0 P
2 FA0 x A F0 To P F T P
 cB  ( )( )( )  2c A0 x A ( 0 )( o )( )
v0 F T P0 F T P0
yB P y A0 P0
cB  , c A0 
RT RT0
y B P 2 y A0 P0 x A 1 T P
  ( )( o )( )
RT RT0 1  y A0 x A T P0
2 y A0 xA
 yB 
1  y A0 x A

Substituting yB  0.1, y A0  0.1, → xA  0.526

1
3)

A  B  R, molar extent 1  
R  B  S, molar extent  2  

Species Initial  Final

A NA0 - NA0-
B NB0 -- NB0--
R 0 - -
S 0  
Total NA0+ NB0 NA0+ NB0--

N A  N R  N S  N A0    (   )    N A0

N A N R N S N A0
Division by V0 gives     cA0
V0 V0 V0 V0

For a constant density system, the first three terms are c A , cR , cS respectively

cS c c
 c A  cR  cS  c A 0 or  1 A  R
c A0 c A 0 cR 0

Similarly N R  2 N A  N B  (   )  2( N A0   )  ( N B 0     )  2 N A0  N B 0

Division by V0 throughout and assuming a constant density reaction system,

cR 2(c A0  c A ) cB  cB 0
 
c A0 c A0 cA0

The stoichiometric table clearly indicates that the number of moles is not conserved
( N  N 0 ) in the reactions. Hence the concentration relationships will not hold for a
variable density reacting system (reactions in the gas phase).

2
4)

2 A  3B , rA  2 R  0.05c A2

From the PFR design equation,

xA dx A xA dx
A
V  FA0  FA0 
0  rA 0 kc A2
c A0 (1  x A )
 cA 
1   A xA
xA dx A xA dx A
 V  FA0  2
FA0 
0 kcA 0 kc A0 (1  x A ) 2
2

(1   A x A ) 2
Integration gives

v0 x
V [2 A (1   A ) ln(1  x A )   A2 x A  (1   A ) 2 A ]
kcA0 1  xA

(Equation 23 on p.112 of OL)

Substituting all known values

v0  1
k  0.05
p y P 0.2  1.5
c A 0  A0  A0   0.01
RT RT 0.082  (273  93)
3 2
  0.5
2
 A   y A0  0.5  0.2  0.1

 V  2125 liters

3
5)

CH 4 ( A)  H 2O ( B )  CO (C )  3H 2 ( D) 1  
CO(C )  H 2O ( B)  CO2 ( E )  H 2 ( D) 2  

Species In  Out
A FA0 - FA0-
B FB0 -- FB0--
C 0 - -
D 0 3+ 3+
E 0  
Total FA0+FB0 FA0+ FB0+2

FD  3  

If methane is the limiting reactant, FA  FA0    0    FA0

FD  3FA0  

Hence having WGS (   0 ) would increase H2 production. The maximum value

occurs when all intermediate CO is reacted, i.e. FC      0     (  FA0 ) and
FB 0  2 FA0 (from FB  0  FB 0      FA0  FA0 )

If water is the limiting reactant, FB  FB 0      0  FB 0    

FD  3    3FB 0  2 

This value is greatest if   0 (no WGS reaction) (water is the oxidizing agent and is
more productive in oxidizing CH4 in SMR than oxidizing CO in WGS  resulting in
3 moles H2 per mole of H2O in the former vs 1 mole of H2 per mole of H2O in the
latter)

FA F F F F
cA  , cB  B , cC  C , cD  D , cE  E
v v v v v

where the values of FA, FB, FC, FD and FE are taken from the entries in the last column
of the stoichiometric table.

At constant T &P, v can be calculated from the equation of state (EOS)

 Pv  FRT , Pv 0  F0 RT
F F  FB 0  2 2
 v=v 0  v 0 ( A0 )  v 0 (1  )
F0 FA0  FB 0 FA0  FB 0